Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney
1.8K views | +2 today
Follow
 
Scooped by David Slepkow
onto Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney
Scoop.it!

Rhode Island Construction Accidents by a RI Injury Attorney

Rhode Island Construction Accidents by a RI Injury Attorney | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it

Third Party Claims in Rhode Island AND Massachusetts(ma)

Due to the structure of the construction industry, a claim seeking compensation for a construction site accident is usually a highly complicated process. Because of that, many injured workers hire skilled Providence personal injury attorneys who specialize in RI construction accidents to evaluate the potential of a third party claim.

Often times, a third party (not the employer) might also be responsible for causing the accident or incident that injured the victim. If the Rhode Island construction accident attorney can prove that the negligence of a third party caused the injuries, they can also be held legally accountable for additional financial compensation.

A third party involved in a Rhode island or MA construction accident could include:

• Equipment rental business
• Multiple contractors
• Subcontractors and their employees
• Property development corporations
• Engineers and architects
• Equipment manufacturers
• Tool companies
• Landowners

 

Most accidents on construction sites in Rhode island and Providence Plantations are the result of OSHA violations. When a skilled construction accident attorney in Rhode Island can prove a violation directly resulted in the worker’s injuries, third parties might be held financially liable for additional compensation to the victim. These violations could include:

 

• A lack in providing fall protection
• Defective wiring
• Unstable ladders and scaffolding
• A lack in providing respiratory protection
• Failing to warn construction workers of hazards in specific locations
• Unsafe heavy equipment and trucks
• Site hazards including gas pipes, electrical lines and other energy
• Allowing workers to use equipment without safety guards
• Unsafe scenarios where materials and objects are lifted overhead
• Missing barricades used to block off trenches and excavations

 

Hiring a RI Construction accident Attorney

 

Any construction worker injured on the site should seek counsel and advice from a reputable Providence or Boston construction accident lawyer, even if they are collecting benefits through workers’ compensation. When it can be proved that the accident is the result of negligence or carelessness by another, it is often possible to recover financial compensation for tangible and non-tangible damages.

 

 

more...
No comment yet.
Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Foodborne illness & food poisoning lawsuit, Salmonella, E. coli etc​. – Defects Lawyer

Foodborne illness & food poisoning lawsuit, Salmonella, E. coli etc​. – Defects Lawyer | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
David Slepkow's insight:

Food poisoning is both angering and debilitating at once. When you purchase food or eat at a restaurant, the last thing that you expect is that the food will make you ill. Some foodborne illness is serious enough to cause lasting damage, and even death in some cases. Below is some information on the common or most severe types of foodborne illness. If you have contracted any of them and have suffered harm, it is vital that you contact a food poisoning lawsuit lawyer. The manufacturer or the purveyor of the food that sickened you may be legally responsible for your illness.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there are more than 250 foodborne illnesses. These are infections that result from bacteria and other viruses. These can also result from toxins and chemicals. According to the CDC, there are five top foodborne illnesses. In addition, there are several other common illnesses beyond the top five.

Norovirus

Norovirus is a severe stomach bug that results in nearly 800 deaths each year. It is highly contagious and easily spread. People can contract norovirus in a variety of different ways, including contact with someone who has the virus. It can be transmitted through food. If someone infected with norovirus comes into contact with food, then the food can carry the virus. Norovirus can also spread through water and surfaces. The illness can last from one to three days, but more severe cases can require hospitalization.

Salmonella

According to the CDC, there are over one million cases of salmonella in the United States each year. The illness kills approximately 450 people each year. The illness generally last from four to seven days, but in many cases, it does not require further treatment. However, if the diarrhea is severe enough, hospitalization is required. Salmonella is often spread through contaminated meat. For example, there was a recent outbreak of salmonella that has been connected to Butterball turkey products. There is also another active outbreak of salmonella that has come from tainted ground beef.

Clostridium Perfringens

While not as well known as the other types of foodborne illness, C. perfringens is every bit as common. While the name is not well-known, this is more familiar to people as food poisoning. Over one million Americans are sickened by this on an annual basis. This can come from eating rotten food or food that was not stored at the right temperature. Due to the nature of this illness, it will most likely not come as part of an outbreak because it comes from individual food not being served and stored in a correct manner.

Campylobacter

This mostly results from eating poultry that has been undercooked. Outbreaks of this illness are rare. According to the CDC, there have been an average of 35 outbreaks of this illness each year recently. Although this foodborne illness is not as severe as the others, it is very easy for someone to become sickened with it. All it takes is one drop of juice from contaminated poultry and one can contract this illness. This illness sickens over one million Americans each year, although many cases go unreported.

Listeria

This is a common cause of fatalities among foodborne illnesses. Listeria is very rare, but is very deadly. Of the approximately 1,600 people that contract listeria every year, roughly one in every six die. Pregnant women are especially susceptible to this illness. Nearly all of the cases of listeria will require the patient to be hospitalized. Recently, there was on outbreak of listeria from pork products that sickened four people, although there were no fatalities.

E. Coli

This is one of the more well-known foodborne illnesses. According to the CDC, there are approximately 75,000 people who are sickened with this illness every year and roughly 2,000 will require hospitalization. Between 50 and 100 people die from this disease annually. Recently, one of the more publicized out breaks of this illness was the E. Coli that was connected with consumption of romaine lettuce that caused one fatality.

There are numerous other foodborne illnesses. including botulism and Vibrio. Botulism is a serious illness because its toxins attack the body’s nervous system. While botulism is rare, up to one in ten cases can be fatal.

Food Poisoning Lawsuits

Widespread cases of food poisoning can lead to large-scale litigation. For example, there have recently been a number of cases filed in the wake of the outbreak of E. coli. People in 11 states were sickened from consuming this romaine lettuce. It is believed that nearly 150 people were sickened in this outbreak. At least five lawsuits have been filed in conjunction with the tainted romaine lettuce. Many of the plaintiffs required hospitalization, including blood transfusions, due to the severity of their illness. Some of the plaintiffs were sickened by eating romaine lettuce served at Panera Bread. The lawsuits target the lettuce supplier for Panera. Further, several restaurants have been sued because the plaintiffs were sickened by food that they ate there.

Another example of widespread food contamination litigation is the lawsuits that have been filed against Chipotle. The Mexican restaurant chain was the originator of a nationwide outbreak of E. coli starting in 2015. As of August 2018, there were over 700 cases filed against Chipotle for food poisoning claims. These consist of both individual claims as well as class action lawsuits. There was another outbreak that has been traced to a Chipotle in Ohio that has led to an increase in the number of suits against Chipotle.

Food Poisoning as Product Liability Cases

When it comes to lawsuits that stem from instances of food poisoning, there are a number of different possible defendants. The company that manufactured the product may be held liable for making the food that made you sick. Further, if you purchased the food at a grocery store, that establishment can also be sued for selling you the food. Similarly, a restaurant where you ate the food can also be legally responsible for your illness. A lawyer will likely advise you to sue both the manufacturer and the seller of the food. You will receive the verdict or the settlement and it is up to the two companies to fight it out to see who has to pay what share of your award.

In most states, all you have to show is that the food was contaminated and that the contamination was the cause of your illness. It does not matter whether the manufacturer was negligent in how they prepared the food. Of course you can always show that the supplier was negligent and that may increase your jury award. However, under the products liability theory, proving negligence is not required.

Food poisoning lawsuit lawyer

If you have been sickened by any type of food, it is best to get the documentation from your doctor of the reason why you were sickened. Your medical records should contain the diagnosis of whatever foodborne illness you contracted. Then, you should seek out legal counsel to figure out whether you have a viable legal claim against anyone who may have had a role in selling that food to you. It is vital that you contact a salmonella lawsuit lawyer immediately, while the evidence that can back up your claim is still available. In addition, there is also the issue with the statute of limitations that can place a time limit on filing a claim. The E. Coli lawsuit lawyer can tell you after reviewing the facts of your case whether they believe that you have a viable legal claim.

Sources:

https://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/causes/bacteriaviruses/norovirus/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks-active.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/01/chipotle-hit-with-new-lawsuit-over-food-contamination-in-ohio.html

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/chipotle-food-poisoning-cases-up-to-700-as-fast-food-chain-hit-with-second-lawsuit.html

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from California Car Accident and Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

Pedestrian Fatalities Reach an All-time High — Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorney Blog — March 6, 2019

Pedestrian Fatalities Reach an All-time High — Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorney Blog — March 6, 2019 | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
The number of pedestrian accident injuries and fatalities has sharply risen both in California and across the U.S. People can be seriously injured or killed when they are struck by motor vehicle

Via Steven M. Sweat
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Hernia Mesh Recall NOT required to file a lawsuit - Free Consultation

Hernia Mesh Recall NOT required to file a lawsuit - Free Consultation | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
A recall does not need to be issued to pursue justice for defective surgical mesh. Speak with an attorney to find out if you have legal recourse for your situation.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Blood Poisoning - Sepsis & Septic Shock from Hernia Mesh

Blood Poisoning - Sepsis & Septic Shock from Hernia Mesh | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Hernia mesh has proven to be dangerous on a number of fronts. In addition to allergic reactions that patients could have and shifting of the hernia mesh, the composition and makeup of the mesh can cause poisoning. Specifically, the mesh can cause bacteria to enter the blood. The presence of bacteria can cause an infection …
David Slepkow's insight:

Hernia mesh has proven to be dangerous on a number of fronts. In addition to allergic reactions that patients could have and shifting of the hernia mesh, the composition and makeup of the mesh can cause poisoning. Specifically, the mesh can cause bacteria to enter the blood. The presence of bacteria can cause an infection which can lead to progressively worse problems such as sepsis, septic shock, and even death. If you have had hernia surgery with mesh implanted and have experienced a post-operative infection, it is vital that you contact a hernia mesh lawyer immediately to learn your legal rights.

WHAT IS HERNIA MESH USED FOR?

There are several different types of hernias as well as ways to repair the hernia. When a patient has a hernia, the muscles are protruding through a weakness in the muscle wall. In the past, the most prevalent way of fixing a hernia was to directly sow the hole. This led to a lengthier recovery time from the surgery. Hernia mesh became an alternative to this type of surgery. Instead of sewing the hole closed, surgeons would sew hernia mesh over the hole. There are some benefits to the use of mesh, primarily that the rate of recurrence of the hernia is lower than in surgeries where the hole is sowed shut.

The outcome after the mesh was implanted depended on the type of mesh. Certain meshes are biological and are degradable. When these types of meshes are used, healthy tissue grows around it as the mesh disintegrates. Other types of meshes are more permanent. Healthy tissue will still grow, but the mesh will remain in the body covering the hole. This type of mesh needs to remain strong and intact in order to perform its intended function.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MESH?

The most prevalent type of surgical mesh is made out of a type of plastic and does not disintegrate. This material is called polypropylene. Hernia mesh manufacturers have stated that their product is inert. In other words, there would not be oxidation or degradation over the course of its lifetime. When hernia meshes oxidize and are exposed to other elements, they may change composition. This will lead to post-operative complications for a patient. Since polypropylene mesh is a foreign material, it is an ideal breeding ground for the colonization of bacteria.

INFECTIONS FROM HERNIA MESH

One of the possible complications for a patient is an infection. This is one of the more severe side effects that a hernia mesh recipient can experience. According to a 2007 paper, the infection rate among hernia mesh recipients can be as high as ten percent. While the risk of infection is most prevalent in the immediate weeks after the surgery, so long as the mesh is in the patient’s body, there is always the risk of infection. Generally, the more mesh that a surgeon uses, the higher the likelihood of an infection in the patient.

These infections may not be a one-time occurrence for the patient. Hernia related infections can be chronic and recurring. In that event, the infections become a debilitating, and perhaps a life threatening event. Beyond not being able to work or carry on normal life functions, a patient’s health can be severely degraded from these infections.

There are several different ways that a patient can contract an infection from hernia mesh. The first is through what is known as blood poisoning. This is when toxins from the infection reach the bloodstream. In addition, a biofilm can form on the hernia mesh. When this occurs, antibiotics will not make the infection go away, and surgery is needed to remove the mesh in order to prevent further infection.

The second type of infection is when the mesh shrinks or migrates. In this instance, it can perforate internal organs. When that happens, contents from the intestines and bowels can travel to the rest of the body causing a more severe infection.

SEPSIS AND SEPTIC SHOCK

In the worst scenario, a patient with a mesh infection can experience sepsis. This occurs when the body releases chemicals in order to fight an infection. This stage is reached after the infection reaches the bloodstream. The body’s natural instinct is to do whatever it can to rid itself of an infection. Essentially, the immune system turns on itself in an effort to fight the infection. However, these chemicals that are released can have a major effect on the organs in the body. When these chemicals cause an imbalance in the body, it is called sepsis. This condition can lead to a failure of the body’s major organs.

When a patient experiences sepsis, it can possibly lead to septic shock if it progresses far enough. This is an extremely dangerous condition that usually causes death for half of the patients who have reached this state. When a patient experiences septic shock, the body cannot provide adequate blood to the organs and blood pressure becomes dangerously low. This can cause kidney failure, heart failure or multiple organ failure. This will require treatment in an ICU.

HERNIA MESH LAWSUITS

There have been multiple lawsuits filed against manufacturers of hernia mesh. Most of these cases are early in their life cycles. There was a large suit against C.R. Bard, a manufacturer of hernia mesh, that settled in 2011. As part of the settlement, C.R. Bard paid $184 million to settle 2 600 claims against it. Currently, there are also lawsuits pending against Johnson & Johnson, who is the manufacturer of Physiomesh, which is the highest-selling hernia mesh on the market. Atrium Medical is the other major manufacturer that is currently defending against litigation relating to defective hernia mesh. There are also thousands of cases filed against Bard / Davol as a result of allegations that their mesh is defective. The vast majority of the hernia mesh lawsuits result from mesh made of polypropylene.

If you have had a hernia where mesh was implanted and you have contracted an infection, you should contact a hernia mesh lawyer immediately. The surgical mesh attorney can discuss your legal case with you and inform you of the prospects for receiving compensation for your infection.

Sources:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sepsis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351214

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Desperation, Lies, Willful Ignorance & Enabling Attorney= A MESS!

Desperation, Lies, Willful Ignorance & Enabling Attorney= A MESS! | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Desperation, Lies, Willful Ignorance & Enabling Attorney= A MESS!
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

A Cautionary Tale for Lawyers- Nightmare Suing Ex Divorce Clients

A Cautionary Tale for Lawyers- Nightmare Suing Ex Divorce Clients | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
(Editors Notes 9/8/13: the Defendant Divorce Client filed for Bankruptcy after the RI Supreme Court rendered its decision, discharging this debt. This whole proceeding was a massive waste of time and resources!  The potential for an annoying and time consuming counterclaim or a bankruptcy filing is not the only reason to not litigate against former clients. Another reason why …
David Slepkow's insight:

Editors Notes 9/8/13: the Defendant, divorce client, filed for Bankruptcy after the RI Supreme Court rendered its decision, discharging this debt. This whole proceeding was a massive waste of time and resources!  The potential for an annoying and time consuming counterclaim or a bankruptcy filing is not the only reason to not litigate against former clients. Another reason why it is not advisable to file a lawsuit against a custody or family law client is because some of these clients will file a disciplinary complaint  against the attorney as retaliation.

Rhode Island child custody attorneys

The attorney then has to spend hours responding to the ethics complaint, even if it is merit-less. Also, Malpractice Insurance Companies detest attorneys filing lawsuits against former clients in fee disputes. Often, an attorney feels it necessary to submit a counterclaim to its malpractice insurance company who may require a big deductible to defend the cause of action.

 It puts the Rhode Island divorce attorney in a catch 22 situation. If the a RI family law lawyer does not report the counterclaim to the insurance company then the insurance company has no obligation to pay the claim. But however, if the claim is reported then the  Providence child custody lawyer may be out $5,000, to $15,000 in deductible, even if the cause of action is frivolous or merit-less. Such counterclaims can also raise a lawyer’s insurance premiums going forward)

This is an absurd story out of RI and shows why a lawyer should almost never sue an ex client.

Mary Seguin hires a RI Law Firm, Smith Law P.C to represent her in two messy Rhode Island Family Court Matters – “a divorce action involving her former husband, Marc Seguin (Mr. Seguin), and a paternity action involving Seguin’s former boss at a prior place of employment.” Smith law. v. Mary Y. Seguin Eventually,  Smith Law makes a good decision to file a motion to withdraw- claiming it was owed $30,000 in legal fees. Id.  Smith Law was allowed to withdraw. Id.  Finally!

This should have ended this law firms involvement in this case so that the RI Law firm could go about its business representing, hopefully, paying clients

Why would any attorney in a RI Family Court allow a divorce and Paternity client to owe $30,000 without withdrawing representation in the Family Court sooner?

Editor’s note 6 /2/14  It appears that Ms. Seguin  was up to some of her old tricks when, after the RI Supreme Court ruled, she filed a federal lawsuit in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND. “She brought suit against Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, Judge Paul Suttell, Chief Judge of the Rhode Island Supreme Court, and two Rhode Island state officials,alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal criminal statutes, and state law, arising out of a series of orders issued in cases relating to custody proceedings involving Seguin.” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_12-cv-00708/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_12-cv-00708-0.pdf  Case 1:12-cv-00708-JD-LM Document 42 Filed 12/14/12 The federal court Judge dismissed this cause of action “because the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Id.########

RI divorce lawyer should have withdrawn from case

In my opinion, the first mistake these Rhode Island Family Law Lawyers made was not withdrawing as soon as it became apparent that the client was not going to pay the bill. For its Part, “On May 1, 2007, the law firm filed a complaint against Seguin in the Superior Court seeking to recover unpaid legal fees  in the amount of $31,069.17, plus statutory interest and costs” Smith Law. v. Mary Y. SEGUIN. Rather then running for the hills from this client and focusing their attention on existing clients and obtaining paying new clients, Smith Law, in my opinion, effectively doubled down on this matter. Unfortunately, if this were blackjack they essentially decided to double down when their first two cards equaled 6. They should have ran away, far away and cut their losses at that time, but they decided to litigate.

Sadly, they then spent the next 5 years litigating the matter using countless resources in an attempt to collect a potentially worthless judgment.

After the law firm, in my opinion,  decided to (in essence) double down on its weak hand (even if the law firm obtained a judgment it is not clear that they probably would ever get paid), Ms Seguin Predictably ” filed an answer, as well as a counterclaim, setting forth fifteen counts against the law firm—specifically, Seguin alleged: (1) false advertising; (2) deceptive trade practices; (3) fraud; (4)  wire fraud;  (5) mail fraud; (6) RICO violations; (7) breach of fiduciary duty; (8) breach of fiduciary duty by trustee; (9) breach of trust; (10) grand theft; (11) tampering  with/altering legal records; (12) legal malpractice; (13) negligence; (14) breach of contract; and (15) breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Id

“Discovery proceeded between the parties for over two years.”Id.

“Subsequently, on March 16, 2010, the law firm filed a motion for summary judgment on Seguin’s counterclaim.” id. Smith Law’s ‘big victory’ so to speak in this case came on paper when “the motion justice granted the law firm’s motion for summary judgment on Seguin’s counterclaim and also granted partial final judgment, at the law firm’s request, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.

“We note that Seguin has filed numerous motions and memorandum with this Court in connection with her appeal, including, but not limited to: motions for sanctions against the appellee for fraud upon the Court; motions for de-novo appellate review; motions to vacate a void order for noncompliance with de novo appellate standard;  a motion to proceed to full briefing;  and a request for judicial notice.  We have considered such motions during the pend-ency of Seguin’s appeal and have denied them by various orders of this Court.” Id.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the RI Superior Court’s motion for summary judgment on Defendant’s Counterclaim!

Pathetically, this does not end this fiasco as the law firm has not obtained a judgment on its collection case and has not obtained a penny of funds from their former client yet. I hope this firm is not paying out of pocket for its own lawyer. My only Piece of Advice to this Law Firm is MOVE ON! RUN FOR THE HILLS. Concentrate your resources in other money generating endeavors!  Cut your losses now because you should have cut your losses years ago. Stop wasting time and effort on this matter!

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from Personal Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

Uber Ride-Share Car Accident Lawyer - Dolman Law Group

Uber Ride-Share Car Accident Lawyer - Dolman Law Group | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
If you have been injured in an Uber or Lyft accident—as a passenger or a rider—do not wait to hire an experienced rideshare attorney to handle your case.

Via Matthew A. Dolman
more...
Matthew A. Dolman's curator insight, February 24, 6:12 PM

Thanks to these revolutionary new services, the taxi is ready to go the way of the dinosaur but in the end you are still traveling via car and all the same risks still apply. That means that an accident can happen while you are being whisked away to whichever destination you have specified. this begs the question of what happens if you do happen to get in an accident while in an Uber or similar rideshare service? Better yet, what happens if you happen to get injured in an Uber accident?

(click on this article to learn more)

Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Hernia Mesh Material made of Synthetic Materials - polypropylene, marlex, polyester

Hernia Mesh Material made of Synthetic Materials - polypropylene, marlex, polyester | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Hernia mesh has changed the way the surgical procedure is conducted. While, in the past, hernias had been complicated procedures that involved a hospital stay, now they can be done without an overnight stay in the hospital due to the manner in which the mesh can cover the hole that is causing the hernia. However, …
David Slepkow's insight:

Hernia mesh has changed the way the surgical procedure is conducted. While, in the past, hernias had been complicated procedures that involved a hospital stay, now they can be done without an overnight stay in the hospital due to the manner in which the mesh can cover the hole that is causing the hernia. However, this progress has come at a cost through the complications that these meshes have caused the patients that have had this material implanted into their bodies. The composition of this mesh has precipitated all sorts of issues from allergic reactions to life-threatening infections. In part, these have resulted from the way that these hernia meshes have been manufactured. The complications have led to a large number of product liability lawsuits being filed against the manufacturers of these products.

WHAT IS HERNIA MESH?

A hernia mesh is a sheet that is placed over the affected area and sewn into the muscles. When a patient has a hernia, it means that an organ or other fatty tissue has squeezed through a hole in the muscle. This can occur at various points of a patient’s midsection. The result of the hernia is that the patient often has a bulge where the organ has come through and a hole from which it protrudes. The point of the hernia is to fix the hole so that the organ or the fatty tissue can no longer protrude. In the past, that hole was sewn shut. This was a complicated procedure that was a major surgery and required an incision.

In the 1980s, however, surgeons began to use a hernia mesh in order to fix the problem. This mesh was placed over the affected area and sewn in to cover the problem. Eventually, the area around the mesh would strengthen, but the mesh would obscure the protrusion until it did so.

A hernia that results in implantation of mesh results is a foreign substance being introduced to the body. Oftentimes, this can cause side effects that can impact a patient long after the actual procedure. In order to understand why some of these meshes can cause complications for patients, it is important the understand the composition and features of each of these meshes.

MARLEX

Marlex mesh is one of the oldest types of hernia meshes, having been used in surgery going back to the 1950s. Marlex is a fiber that is made out of polyethylene. This material is part of the family of thermoplastic polymers. In other words, the surgery resulted in the insertion of plastic into a patient’s body. Marlex is the same type of plastic material that is used in the manufacture of Hula Hoops. Marlex was the predominant product in the hernia mesh market for over 30 years until advances were made in the technology used in hernia meshes. Marlex is still used for the repair of inguinal hernias.

POLYPROPYLENE

This material is found in the hernia mesh that is called Physiomesh. Polypropylene is also the type of surgical mesh that the vast majority of hernia mesh is composed of. Physiomesh was manufactured by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and was voluntarily removed from the Market by J&J because of widespread victim complications as well as studies indicating that the mesh was defective. Also, the vast majority of the hernia mesh manufactured by Bard/ Davol and Atrium is composed of polyproplene. Polypropylene is also made with material that is in the plastics family. This material has both physical and chemical properties and is considered to be a low-density plastic. Makers of polypropylene hernia mesh claim that this material is inert when it is used as hernia mesh. However, some complications have resulted from the fact that biofilms can actually grow on the surface of these meshes causing infection.

POLYESTER

Hernia meshes that are made out of polyester are braided sheets that do not have some of the same chemical properties as polypropylene-based meshes. Although polyester meshes shrink less than other types of meshes, the main danger of the polyester mesh is degradation. When a hernia mesh degrades, it can cause infection. Alternatively, failure of the mesh can result in the need for an additional surgery to fix the hernia problem. While a polyester mesh would ordinarily sound safer than a plastic mesh, studies have shown no difference in post-operative pain when a polyester mesh is used. Mesh manufactured by Covidien/ Medtronic is made of Polyester mesh.

BIOMATERIALS

Meshes that introduce less chemical substances into the body may be considered safer than synthetic meshes. The latest generation of hernia meshes feature biological products as the basis for the composition of the mesh. These types of meshes include bovine, pig and human material. They act as a biological scaffold while the patient’s own muscles regenerate around the mesh. Eventually, the mesh will disintegrate, and patient will be left with their own healed muscles. This type of mesh is the safest mesh available in terms of being able to prevent post-surgical complications. The obstacle to more widespread adoption of these meshes are the high cost. The hope is that the cost can come down to the point where these products are used in a majority of the future hernia operations.

SIDE EFFECTS

The fact that meshes with foreign materials are permanently implanted into the body introduces a heightened risk for complications resulting from a hernia surgery. The rate of complication in a hernia surgery can range up to 25% according to a study published by the NIH. Some of the complications that can result from hernia meshes include infection and allergic reactions. These will cause pain at the surgical site for months after the procedures. In a worst-case scenario, the patient must have a follow-up procedure to have the mesh removed. A new mesh must either then be inserted or the hernia otherwise fixed. These complications are both painful and expensive. Even minor complications have the possibility to degrade a patient’s quality of life for a long time after the surgery.

If you have had a surgery that has resulted in the implantation of hernia mesh and have experienced complications after the surgery, it is imperative that you contact a lawyer immediately. A hernia mesh attorney will advise you of the legal options that you have to file a hernia mesh lawsuit, including your chances of obtaining a recovery for the defective hernia mesh that has caused your side effects after your procedure.

Sources:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21755316

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5618132/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999781/

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from California Car Accident and Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

When Electric Scooters Crash, Who’s to Blame?

When Electric Scooters Crash, Who’s to Blame? | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
The rise of the shared e-scooters in cities has also brought safety fears and injury-related lawsuits. What happens when a new mobility mode meets the American legal system?

Via Steven M. Sweat
more...
Steven M. Sweat's curator insight, January 14, 2:06 PM

Great article here which summarizes the complex legal liability issues involved with the electric scooter craze that has taken over Los Angeles. 

Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Need New RI Personal Injury Lawyer, Prior Attorney Paid?

Need New RI Personal Injury Lawyer, Prior Attorney Paid? | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Unhappy with your RI Personal Injury Lawyer? CALL Rhode Island personal injury attorney, David Slepkow 401-437-1100. Providence car and vehicle accidents.
David Slepkow's insight:

If I Need A New RI Personal Injury Lawyer, will Prior Accident Attorney be Paid?

RI personal injury lawyer

A RI personal injury lawyer answers several frequently asked questions concerning the law relating to a client firing an inept, disappointing and ineffective automobile crash lawyer. An injured victim is entitled to the best personal injury lawyer in Rhode Island to represent him in a RI tort, workers compensation or slip and fall claim.

Does the seriously injured person have the right to obtain a new RI car crash lawyer?

Does the injured victim have the right to obtain a new RI car attorney if an injured victim is disappointing with a RI injury lawyer, who is representing the claimant in a negligence cause of action? Pursuant to Rhode Island legal ethics laws, a client has the right to obtain a new personal injury lawyer at any time during the legal representation. The client is actually the owner of the vast majority of the legal file. The prior Rhode Island car accident lawyer must turn over nearly all of the negligence legal file to the new attorneys.

If I obtain a new RI personal injury lawyer, who is liable to compensate the prior discharged liability attorney?

Your prior  lawyer  may assert a ‘statutory lien’ against your car wreck,  RI premises liability claim, slip and fall or trucking accident cause of action. Once there is a settlement with the tortfeasor and the liability and indemnity insurance company forwards your new injury lawyer the settlement funds, then the Rhode Island attorneys will sort out what is fair compensation for the lawyer you fired.  The client is not required to compensate the prior attorney out of their own funds. When your RI car crash lawsuit or claim is settled or when your RI personal injury lawyer receives the settlement cash as a result of a verdict after a trial in Providence Superior Court or after a settlement, the old and the new lawyer will equitably divide the settlement funds.

It does not cost the injured victim anything additional as a result of retaining a new RI personal injury lawyer. The Providence lawyers involved must come to an agreement as to the ‘cut’ received by the attorney. If the injured victim retains new counsel, then the attorneys will split the Thirty Three Percent contingency fee. Most automobile accident and other negligence and liability claims such as motor vehicle accidents are litigated on a contingency fee basis. This means in which the RI car accident lawyer agrees to take a third of the settlement obtained by the victim. If the injured victim hires a new personal injury lawyer, then the attorneys will split the (33%).

What types of personal injury and negligence claims are handled on a contingency fee basis?

Premises liability, trip and fall, motor vehicle accidents, slip and fall truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, wrongful death, bicycle accidents etc.

What do I do if the lawyer I fired  and the new attorney are squabbling over fees in a nasty fee dispute?

If the lawyers are fighting over their cut of the settlement and cannot agree on how to divide the lawyer’s fees then they can submit the dispute to the Rhode Island Bar Association fee dispute arbitration. Otherwise, the RI personal injury lawyers can litigate. It is not the victim’s concern how the tort attorneys divide the auto crash attorney’s fees because there is no additional expense or cost to obtain a new lawyer! If the old and new lawyer are warring over the division of the lawyer’s fee, they must still hand over the victim’s share of the cash to the injured victim prior to the resolution of the feud.

“The index to all ethics opinions issued by the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Texas last appeared in the December 1994 issue of the Texas Bar Journal. The following is an updated index of opinions published to date and is current through Opinion 651 (February 2016).” TEXAS ETHICS REPORTER  https://www.law.uh.edu/libraries/ethics/opinions/ethicssubjectindexb.html

For other legal articles by David Slepkow, please go here

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

GM ignition switch lawsuit / recall causing death & catastrophic injury – Defects Lawyer

GM ignition switch lawsuit / recall causing death & catastrophic injury – Defects Lawyer | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
David Slepkow's insight:
Many victims allege that General Motors put profits ahead of human safety and endangered the lives of countless innocent motorists by failing to issue a recall for defective ignition switches. GM paid $900 million dollars to the United States as part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. They were admittedly in violation of the TREAD Act (Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act), a Federal statute that requires automotive manufacturers to act with due diligence in notifying dealers, owners, and prospective buyers of the defect. GM employees submitted documents to Congress that proved that they knew about the defects in nearly 30 million recalled vehicles as far back as 2005. The congressional documents prove that they even held meetings in 2005 to discuss the problem but decided a recall would be too expensive. It is estimated that it would have cost GM as little as 57 cents per vehicle to issue a recall in 2005 when they admitted knowledge of the problem.
 
  • Gm Ignition defects recall
  • GM Recall
  • Ignition Switch defect

GM Settlement  | Catastrophic Injuries related to GM Ignition Defects Recalls

To date, more than 124 wrongful death cases have been compensated and settled. Despite the high degree of culpability, over 90 percent of the claims filed for compensation by individual motorists were rejected. Only 399 of the most serious injuries that involved amputation, severe burns, brain damage, and hospitalization were compensated.

Types of Accidents Eligible for Compensation | General Motors

If you were ever injured in a GM vehicle that was manufactured within the last 10 years, it may be one of the 30 million vehicles with faulty ignition switch defects. If the front airbags failed to deploy or the vehicle suddenly lost power, the accidents could be traced directly to the faulty ignition switches. At first, the cases were limited to those where the airbags had failed or a head-on collision resulted. Other cases demonstrated that the engine suddenly shutting off also caused accidents related to hydroplaning, braking, and steering. Power brakes rely upon the vacuum pressure produced by the engine to function. Power steering is powered by a hydraulic pump that is driven by the engine through a system of belts and pulleys.

This may have been a case of planned obsolescence that backfired. GM may have intentionally engineered the stability of the switch to fail by designing it below its own standard operating guidelines. Planned obsolescence is a common trend in the automotive industry. The ignition switch was held into place after startup by an “ignition switch detent plunger” that failed to maintain the sufficient mechanical resistance needed to prevent accidental disengagement. It could theoretically vibrate loose on a rough road, in harsh weather, an accident, or when sudden braking is required most.

GM Vehicles Recalled

The list of recalled vehicles that they continued to produce with defective switches, from earliest to latest ranges:

• Chevrolet Malibu (1997–2005)
• Oldsmobile Intrique (1998–2002)
• Oldsmobile Alero (1999–2004)
• Pontiac Grand Am (1999–2005)
• Cadillac Deville (2000–2005)
• Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2000–2007)
• Chevrolet Impala (2000–2014)
• Saturn Vue (2002–2004)
• Cadillac CTS (2003–2014)
• Buick Regal GS (2004–2005)
• Buick Regal LS (2004–2005)
• Cadillac SRX (2004–2006)
• Cadillac SRX (2004–2006)
• Pontiac Grand Prix (2004–2008)
• Cadillac DTS (2004–2011)
• Buick Allure (2005–2009)
• Buick LaCrosse (2005–2009)
• Daewoo G2X (2007–2009)
• Opel GT (2007–2010)
• Vauxhall GT (2007–2010)
• Pontiac G8 (2008 – 2009)
• Chevrolet Camaro (2010–2014)
• Chevrolet Caprice (2011 – 2013)
• Buick Lucerne (all)
• Chevrolet Cobalt (all)
• Chevrolet HHR (all)
• Pontiac G5 (all)
• Pontiac Pursuit (all)
• Pontiac Solstice (all)
• Saturn Ion (all)
• Saturn Sky (all)

An ongoing problem exists because recall repairs are not being carried out by a majority of owners. It is difficult for owners to pay attention to notifications they may receive by mail. This may have been part of the GM strategy in waiting for a large amount of time to pass because fewer owners would be alerted of the recalls. Most owners only pay attention to recalls when their vehicles are still under warranty and they are already at the dealership for mandated factory service. If the dealership alerts them while they are there, that is about the only time they carry out recall repairs. This means that there are still many unsafe vehicles on the roads endangering the public.

Compensation, GM ignition switch lawsuit

The trend for compensation in the GM class action lawsuit settlement case appears to be based upon documented serious injuries that are intrinsically linked to the ignition switch. A number of claims may have already been litigated through insurance companies and settled. These cases may be liable for compensation even if the settlement would open issues previously litigated based on the discovery of new evidence and fraud theories. Wrongful death claim compensation starts at $1 million.

If you believe you were injured in one of these ignition-related incidents, time is of the essence. It is important to contact an accident attorney who specializes specifically in GM ignition recall litigation. It is important to reconstruct the accident with expert testimony (in many cases) and to document the full extent of your injuries for maximum compensation. Damages are available to compensate victims for wrongful death, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, loss of income due to injury, disability, quality of life issues, and property damage. General Motors has already admitted fault that makes them liable when your case fits within the class of accidents recognized.

Hold GM Accountable for Commercial Nihilism

When you file a claim against GM, you hold them accountable and create a stronger incentive for the manufacturer to put people before profits. No matter what type of accident you may have suffered in a GM vehicle, you should always discuss the case with an attorney. Never speak with the insurance adjusters on your own. Their job is to elicit information that diminishes your compensation, even in the most cut and dry cases. Their factual accounts of what you told them can be misrepresented and used to bar suit against the insurance company and GM.

If your vehicle is one of the 30 million recalled, please act quickly to have the ignition switch replaced at the dealership. Recalls are carried out free of charge.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Defective Medical Device Attorney – Defects Lawyer

Defective Medical Device Attorney – Defects Lawyer | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
David Slepkow's insight:

Defective Medical Device Attorney

An overview of Product Liability Lawsuits for Defective Medical Devices

Persons that have suffered injury or harm from various products have legal recourse for their injuries. Simply stated, products cannot be manufactured or designed in a manner that causes harm to others and, if they are, those responsible may be held to account. This holds true when one is injured by a defective medical device. In order to know their legal rights, one needs to have a basic understanding of product liability law and how it applies to medical devices.

 

According to the Restatement (Third) Torts, there are three different theories of recovery for product liability cases. The first is that there was a manufacturing defect. The second is that there was a defect in the design. The third theory is that the manufacturer did not give adequate warnings about the dangers of a product or did not give appropriate instructions on a product’s use. All of these three theories are applicable to injuries caused by medical devices.

 

Product liability law is unique in that there are many different parties that may be sued beyond just the manufacturer. Any defendant who is judged to be “in the stream of commerce” may be found liable in whole or in part for a plaintiff’s injuries. Essentially, anyone who has had any contact with the product or role in selling it prior to the product reaching the doctor can be liable. If the medical device has been purchased from a store, then that store can be sued. However, if you are looking to sue a doctor or hospital for implanting a defective medical device, that suit must be brought as a medical malpractice suit. In the event that multiple parties are found to be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, it is up to the liable parties to fight it out amongst themselves for the court to figure out who pays how much of the damages.

The first thing that a plaintiff needs to do when suing under a theory of product liability is to show that the product itself was actually defective. Just because a plaintiff was injured by a product does not automatically mean that it was defective. Proving a defect can occur automatically if it is shown that the product either differs from the manufacturer’s “intended result” or that it differs from the manufacturer’s other products. A plaintiff could also show that the manufacturer was negligent. Of course, the plaintiff must show that there has been no change in the product since it left the manufacturer’s possession. In addition, if a plaintiff can show that a product did not perform as safely as an ordinary customer would have expected or if the inherent risk in the design outweighs the benefits, then they can prove a defect.

If a defect can be proven, then the plaintiff must show that the defect was the actual cause of their injuries. It does not matter whether the manufacturer was negligent because the defect is proof enough that the manufacturer has done something wrong. In other words, a defect would ordinarily make a manufacturer strictly liable absent intervening factors. Manufacturers can then try to show that they are not liable notwithstanding any defect. For example, the plaintiff could have misused the product. Alternatively, someone else could have had possession of the product between the time of manufacture or purchase and caused the defect. One particular defense that is applicable to the medical devices area of product liability is that the particular risk of harm was neither known nor knowable in light of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of manufacture. When a plaintiff is able to recover, damages may include lost wages, pain and suffering, medical bills, compensation for injuries as well as punitive damages.

 

In order to best understand how these theories apply to the medical devices field, it is instructive to focus on several of the major products liability cases in this area. Perhaps the largest medical device litigation of all-time has been the transvaginal mesh litigation. Transvaginal mesh was an implant designed to treat certain pelvic disorders and incontinence among women. However, a large percentage of women who received this medical implant have reported being injured. One of the more prevalent injuries has been the mesh cutting through the skin and causing infection. Many women have required multiple rounds of surgeries to deal with the defective mesh. There are four primary manufacturers of the mesh. Each of them have faced numerous lawsuits. Many of these lawsuits have focused on strict products liability. Other suits have alleged that the product was defective or was not tested appropriately and sufficiently. Finally, these manufacturers have been found liable on the grounds that they did not warn physicians of the inherent risks of these products before they sold the products for use. Multimillion dollar verdicts against the manufacturers in these cases have become commonplace. Boston Scientific has faced the most lawsuits in this area with close to 50,000 suits filed against it.

Another major medical devices products liability suit has been the litigation surrounding hip replacements. The early hip replacements were manufactured from metal. This caused a condition called metallosis, which can cause swelling, pain and possibly blood poisoning. In retrospect, it seems to be a dangerous idea to install a part made of metal into a patient’s body. Metal has been known to be associated with toxicity. Plaintiffs have alleged that these metal hip replacements are defective, and that manufacturers have failed to warn patients about the risks associated with these implants. The manufacturers have been hit with over 100,000 lawsuits. According to Consumer Reports, one manufacturer, DePuy, paid roughly $2.5 billion to settle 7,000 suits related to it’s defective implant.

Oftentimes, these suits ultimately end up being consolidated into a large multi-state class action lawsuit. Potential plaintiffs should monitor news in their case to find out how to either file a suit or join the class of plaintiffs.

Sources and Recommended Reading:

https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/liability-and-defenses-to-products-liability
https://www.consumerreports.org/hip-replacement/j-and-j-hip-replacement-lawsuit/
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/supply-chain/boston-scientific-faces-48k-lawsuits-over-pelvic-mesh-implants-5-things-to-know.html
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ultimate-guide-to-product-liability.html

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Asbestos and Mesothelioma Lawsuits and Complications – Defects Lawyer

Asbestos and Mesothelioma Lawsuits and Complications – Defects Lawyer | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
David Slepkow's insight:

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that affects roughly 3,000 individuals each year in the U.S. According to reports, the form of cancer was linked originally with asbestos building supplies that were used in the construction of factories, mills, and shipyards. However, the asbestos products were also used in constructing residential properties as well. With the growing number of mesothelioma cases by the 1970s, government agencies moved to lower the risks associated with asbestos.

Understanding the Law and Asbestos

In the 1970s, the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act were passed to manage how asbestos was used and to regulate the disposal of the materials. Unfortunately, even with the new laws in place, businesses continued to use asbestos in industrial spaces, and more workers developed the occupational disease and died. This lead to the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out Rule in 1989.

OSHA Regulations and Workers Compensation

 According to OSHA regulations, all industrial spaces where asbestos was used must undergo renovations to remove the building materials and prevent common risks to workers. If the employer failed to comply, OSHA retains the right to take legal action against the employer, and workers can utilize their rights to worker’s compensation coverage and benefits according to federal laws. The laws require the employer to send workers to an ER or urgent care facility for testing if they suspect that the worker has developed the disease. Any evidence of mesothelioma is managed initially through the worker’s compensation claims for the occupational disease.

How Do Workers Develop Mesothelioma?

The asbestos building material is distributed throughout the workplace in the form of dust. Over time, the material wears down and dust falls from it. If renovations or repairs are conducted, workers could be exposed to the dust as they drill into the materials. However, the workers inhale the dust as it spreads through ventilation systems primarily. The prolonged exposure or inhalation of the dust leads to the development of mesothelioma.

Are There Different Types of Mesothelioma?

Yes, there are four different types of mesothelioma. The cancer affects the lungs, heart, abdomen, or testicles. Once the location of the disease is discovered, the doctor establishes if the patient has sarcomatoid, epithelioid, or biphasic forms of the disease. According to statistics, around 75% of mesothelioma cases involve epithelioid cancer cells. 10% of the cases are sarcomatoid, and 40% are biphasic. Pleural mesothelioma affects the lungs, and the form of the disease represents about 75% of the cases reported. Peritoneal or abdomen mesothelioma represents about 20% of the cases. Pericardial or heart-related mesothelioma is about 1% of the cases reported in the U.S.

How is Mesothelioma Diagnosed?

Doctors perform physical examinations to identify the location of tumors. CT scans are used to find tumors within the organ system. Biopsies are used to determine if the tumor is malignant or benign. The process could include aspiration with a fine needle, laparoscopy, thoracotomy, laparotomy, or thoracoscopy. Doctors may also perform an MRI or PET scan to diagnose the patient, too.

Is Mesothelioma a Death Sentence?

Patients who have mesothelioma tumors almost always have malignant tumors. It is rare for the doctors to find a benign tumor when diagnosing the disease. For a majority of patients who are diagnosed, the disease is a death sentence. In very rare cases, the disease responds to traditional cancer treatments, and the patient could survive. Doctors can provide chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical removal of tumors to treat the symptoms of the disease, and patients could prolong their life up to twenty-one months. However, at this time there isn’t a known cure for the disease.

What are Risk Factors for Mesothelioma?

Any workers who work within an environment were asbestos is present are at risk of developing mesothelioma. Their family members that come in direct contact with their clothing or their person are also at risk of exposure to the asbestos dust. It is recommended that the worker remove any work attire that is covered in the asbestos dust before entering their home to lower the risk to their family.

 

The Legal Rights of Workers and Their Family

Workers who aren’t compensated fully by worker’s compensation have the legal right to start an asbestos lawsuit. The legal action is an attempt to collect payments for all medical treatment associated with the treatment of mesothelioma and the collection of wages lost due to the development of the disease. Employers may offer a settlement for the worker due to their diagnosis and prognosis.

If any direct members of the worker’s family develop the disease, the employer is responsible for their medical treatment and may offer a settlement due to their liability. However, in most cases, the family must file a legal claim to try to collect compensation for linked cases of the disease.

If the worker dies as a result of mesothelioma, the family could file a wrongful death lawsuit against the employer or their insurer. The claim could lead to the acquisition of lifetime earnings for the worker. The family could also claim certain tort-based options due to the loss of financial support, loss of companionship for spouses, and mental anguish. An attorney explains which options are available to the family when the claim is started.

Class Action Lawsuits Against the Employer

If multiple workers were exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma, an attorney could start a class action lawsuit. Under the circumstances, the attorney works with the patients who are at the greatest risk at the time that the claim is filed. When a high volume of workers develop an occupational disease due to the same employer’s failures, the litigants go to court in groups. They start with individuals who are terminal first and continue down the list of litigants based on their prognosis.

Workers or their family members who have been diagnosed with any form of mesothelioma must act quickly to file a legal claim. The disease is terminal and while it is treatable in some stages, there isn’t a cure. Patients who developed the disease due to the failures of their employers have the right to seek damages. Workers or families who want to start a legal claim are encouraged to contact an attorney right now.

Sources:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20375028 
https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/mesothelioma/statistics 
https://www.asbestos.com/legislation/ban/ 
https://www.mesothelioma.com/treatment/

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from Personal Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

Uber Insurance Claims: How Does the Process Work? -

Uber Insurance Claims: How Does the Process Work? - | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Understanding Uber Accident Claims As much as you may depend on Uber to help you get around the Clearwater area at a reasonable cost, the risks are always there with the company’s drivers. While Uber continues to refine their vetting process, anything can happen; often, the result is a

Via Matthew A. Dolman
more...
Matthew A. Dolman's curator insight, March 18, 2:06 PM

As much as you may depend on Uber to help you get around the Clearwater area at a reasonable cost, the risks are always there with the company’s drivers. While Uber continues to refine their vetting process, anything can happen; often, the result is an accident. Unfortunately, we’ve seen far too many ridesharing accidents occur in South Florida.

 

What makes the aftermath worse is dealing with insurance claims. Would you know what to do if you’re in an Uber accident and need to fill out a claim? You’ll want to know what to do, whether you’re an Uber driver, a passenger, or a pedestrian hit by one of their drivers.

(click on this article to learn more)

 

https://www.dolmanlaw.com/uber-accident-attorney/

Rescooped by David Slepkow from Personal Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

The Most Common Causes of Commercial Vehicle Accidents -

The Most Common Causes of Commercial Vehicle Accidents - | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Semi-Truck Accident Major Causes According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), 415,000 reported crashes involved commercial vehicles in the United States in 2015. Those accidents resulted in a total of 3,852 fatalities, a 22 percent increase from similar crashes in 2009. Surprisingly, 60 percent of crashes involvin

Via Matthew A. Dolman
more...
Matthew A. Dolman's curator insight, March 8, 10:39 PM

Causes of Commercial Vehicle Crashes

As drivers, commercial truckers are generally considered above-average, but federal data indicates that their errors, mistakes, and negligence contribute to more than half of all truck crashes. In this regard, the most commonly cited crash-related factors in the FMCSA’s 2005 Report to Congress on the
Large Truck Crash Causation Study
 follow. (Note: Some crashes involved more than one factor.)

  • Vehicle: brake problems – 29 percent
  • Driver: Travelling too fast for existing conditions – 23 percent
  • Driver: Unfamiliar with roadway – 22 percent
  • Environment: Roadway problems – 20 percent
  • Driver: Over-the-counter drug use – 17 percent
  • Driver: Inadequate surveillance – 14 percent
  • Driver: Fatigue – 13 percent
  • Driver: Felt pressure from carrier – 10 percent
  • Driver: Illegal maneuver – 9 percent
  • Driver: Inattention – 9 percent
  • Driver: External distraction – 8 percent
  • Vehicle: Tire problems – 6 percent
  • Driver: Following too close – 5 percent
  • Driver: Jackknifed – 5 percent
  • Vehicle: Cargo shift – 4 percent
  • Driver: Illness – 3 percent
  • Driver: Internal distraction – 2 percent
  • Driver: Illegal drugs – 2 percent
  • Driver: Alcohol – 1 percent

In many cases, the FMCSA identified “brake problems” as an “associated problem” rather than as the “main problem” that caused the crash. Examples included crashes in which the driver drove too fast for existing conditions and cases in which the driver lacked familiarity with the roadway.

(click on this article to learn more)

 

https://www.dolmanlaw.com/legal-services/truck-accident-attorneys/

Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Hernia Mesh Allergy and How the Body Responds | Mesh Allergy Complications

Hernia Mesh Allergy and How the Body Responds | Mesh Allergy Complications | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
When patients undergo an operation to repair a hernia, oftentimes doctors will insert mesh in order to assist with fixing the weakness. This mesh is stitched in as a means of repair. However, this mesh is a foreign substance that is being implanted into the body. In some instances, patients’ bodies have had an adverse …
David Slepkow's insight:

When patients undergo an operation to repair a hernia, oftentimes doctors will insert mesh in order to assist with fixing the weakness. This mesh is stitched in as a means of repair. However, this mesh is a foreign substance that is being implanted into the body. In some instances, patients’ bodies have had an adverse allergic relation to the insertion of this mesh. This reaction can be prolonged and can lead to additional side effects. There have been numerous mesh lawsuits that have been filed by patients who have suffered prolonged allergic reactions to hernia mesh. If you have suffered such a reaction, you should immediately contact an attorney to have a conversation about your legal options.

WHAT IS A HERNIA?

A hernia is when a patient’s internal organs or tissue end up bulging through the muscle and into the abdominal wall or groin. Left untreated, a hernia will likely get worse over time. The symptoms can deteriorate and lead to more serious complications if it is not fixed. Hernias are fixed by returning the organs to their original place. This is generally done through a small incision and minor surgery. The patient is able to return home the same day as the procedure. According to the FDA, there are over a million hernia operations performed in the United States every year.

There are several different types of hernia operations. One of the hernia operations is a hernioplasty, which involves a mesh repair of the hernia. In this procedure, the surgeon will cover the open muscle as opposed to stitching it shut. The muscle will be covered with a mesh. After the surgeon makes several small incisions, the mesh is sewn onto the healthy surrounding muscle. The mesh will strengthen the weaker areas and stronger muscles will grow around the mesh and gradually heal the hernia.

WHAT IS HERNIA MESH AND HOW IS IT USED?

Hernia mesh is a type of surgical mesh. These are in the form of a sheet and are made out of various materials. The most common type of hernia mesh is made out of polypropylene. This is a synthetic resin that is generally used in ropes and fabrics. Polypropylene is a manufactured substance that has chemical as well as physical properties. There are also meshes that are biological and degrade over time. Some meshes are made out of animal tissue, which makes them more compatible with the human body. The use of hernia mesh has increased exponentially since 1980 and this product is now used in the overwhelming majority of hernia surgeries performed in the United States today.

SIDE EFFECTS FROM HERNIA MESH

The insertion of a foreign object into the body has the possibility to cause side effects. Some surgical meshes, such as transvaginal mesh, have caused severe side effects for patients who have had them implanted. There are more severe side effects of hernia meshes including infection and bowel obstruction. In addition, the mesh can shift position in the body causing additional complications. One of the possible side effects is an allergic reaction to the mesh. Since the mesh is made of polypropylene, it is possible that the body may not receive the mesh without a reaction.

Allergic reactions can be classified into different categories. There are minor reactions that generally feature inflammation at the site of the mesh as well as other difficulties in healing including:

  • Burning at the mesh site
  • Fluid buildup
  • Itches and rash
  • Flu-type symptoms and a cough or cold

There are also prolonged and adverse allergic reactions to the mesh. Sometimes, this reaction can lead to intense abdominal pain at the mesh site. While this reaction may be short-term, sometimes it is a pronounced problem that does not resolve itself. At a certain point, symptoms of the allergic reaction can reach the point where they are life-threatening. In a worst-case scenario, patients may require additional surgery to remove the mesh and either insert a different type of mesh or repair the hernia a different way.

COSTS AND EXPENSES FROM SIDE EFFECTS

When one experiences symptoms from an allergic reaction to a hernia mesh, the costs go beyond just the pain and suffering. There are also medical expenses from the additional care that is needed to deal with the problem. In addition, there is also possible lost wages or use of sick leave if one cannot go to work due to the pain. In addition, there may be emotional distress from the complications and a spouse can suffer damages as well.

Physiomesh is one of the types of hernia meshes that was previously on the market. It was manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. In 2016, there was a worldwide voluntary market removal issued for Physiomesh. The market removal was due to a high rate of recurrence of hernia among patients who received the mesh as well other complications.

LAWSUITS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS

There is an increasing number of Physiomesh lawsuits filed against manufacturers of these hernia meshes. According to the Legal Examiner, at the start of 2018, there were over 500 Physiomesh open lawsuits filed against manufacturers of the product and the number has been increasing. Currently, these cases are a part of multi-district litigation that is pending in the Northern District of Georgia. This is not class action litigation, but these cases have currently been joined together for the discovery phase of the legal proceedings. The cases have been recently filed and just began discovery in 2018. This phase generally takes several years and is also accompanied by expert witness discovery, which will take the better part of 2019. Accordingly, these cases are still very much in their early phases.

If you have had a hernia surgery and have had hernia mesh implanted and are experiencing side effects, it is critical that you seek legal counsel as soon as possible. A lawyer can assess the facts of your case and let you know of your legal options as well as your prospects of achieving a legal recovery in your case.

Sources:

https://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/implantsandprosthetics/herniasurgicalmesh/default.htm

http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/655360/Healthcare/Hernia+Mesh+Complications+Allergy+To+Mesh+And+The+Bodies+Response

https://f1000research.com/articles/6-685/v1

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

3M Military Earplug lawsuit | What you need to know - Slepkow Law (Est. 1932)

In 2018, 3M settled a lawsuit brought against it on behalf of the United States Government under the False Claims Act for $9.1 million. The company was facing claims that it fraudulently billed the federal government for defective earplugs that it provided for use in combat. This amount was paid to the federal government as …
David Slepkow's insight:

In 2018, 3M settled a lawsuit brought against it on behalf of the United States Government under the False Claims Act for $9.1 million. The company was facing claims that it fraudulently billed the federal government for defective earplugs that it provided for use in combat. This amount was paid to the federal government as opposed to the servicemembers who were damaged by the earplugs that failed to work. Below is more information that you need to know about the earplugs and the legal process that has unfolded in the wake of revelations that these earplugs are allegedly defective.  If you are interested in filing a military earplug lawsuit contact us.

The Qui Tam  Lawsuit  a precursor  to the military earplug lawsuits.

The False Claims Act provides relief for taxpayers in the event that the government is overcharged or fraudulently billed in any way. This statute applies in a wide variety of situations from requests for reimbursement filed pursuant to Medicare to any goods or services that are sold to the federal government. This law dates back to the time of the Civil War, when profiteering and outright fraud resulted in large damages to the federal government. The False Claims Act provides that those who defraud the federal government may pay as much as three times the damages that are caused to the government. This is meant to deter those that would attempt to defraud the government and can be a large potential source of liability for government contractors. 

Much of the damages that have been collected by the government have actually not been the results of lawsuits that have been brought by the federal government. Instead, these suits are filed by whistleblowers acting as “private attorney generals.” Their incentive to bring these legal actions is that they receive 15 to 25 percent of the money recovered if the lawsuit is successful. The government has the option to take over the lawsuit after it has been filed. If it does not elect to do so, the whistleblower prosecutes the lawsuit to its conclusion. This is known as a qui tam lawsuit, and the policy is these types of actions are actually encouraged since they are a net positive for society. 

Who Filed the Qui Tam Lawsuit? 

In this event, the lawsuit was filed by a company named Moldex-Metric. There are very few restrictions on who can be a whistleblower under the False Claims Act. Here, the whistleblower was a competitor of 3M in the earplugs space. The two companies have a long history of being litigious and bitter competitors. 3M purchased the company that was the original designer and manufacturer of these earplugs in 2008 and assumed the possible liabilities when it did so. The two companies have fought patent and antitrust lawsuits. Moldex-Metric had knowledge that these earplugs were defective in the manner that will be described below. In addition, Moldex-Metric alleged that 3M knew of this defect and went out of its way to conceal it. According to the qui tam lawsuit, 3M’s own tests revealed that these earplugs were defective, yet the company falsified the required certifications that stated that the product complied with military standards. The lawsuit further alleged that 3M knew that these products were defective six years before it even sold a pair of earplugs to the military. 

In effect, Moldex-Metric was bringing a product liability lawsuit against 3M on behalf of the Defense Logistics Agency. Moldex-Metric had a motivation to gain the upper hand against its competitors by demonstrating the public that 3M’s product was defective. Selling earplugs to the government is a lucrative market given the number of soldiers that must be outfitted with these implements. Conceivably, if 3M was found to have defrauded the federal government, than Moldex-Metric would stand a much better chance of receiving future business from the federal government since the government would be less likely to purchase 3M’s products. In this case, however, 3M stopped manufacturing these specific earplugs in 2015. 

Moldex-Metric had filed this lawsuit in May 2016 on behalf of the Defense Logistics Agency, who purchased the earplugs for the federal government. DLA is often the Department of Defense agency that purchases products for use by the entire Defense Department. The federal government took over the conduct of the lawsuit. Eventually, the Department of Justice elected to enter into a settlement with 3M. In the settlement, 3M agreed to pay $9.1 million to the United States Government. The court stated that half of the suit was restitution and the other half was punitive damages. The federal government has unlimited discretion to settle a lawsuit, and it is continually weighing its chances of success in the lawsuit against the amount that it can recover. Many times, the government will settle for less than the full amount of damages in order to avoid a lengthy and resource-draining trial. 

Where Does the Qui Tam Settlement Money Go? 

The bulk of the settlement was received by the federal government. The settlement specified the percentage of the settlement that the whistleblower was to receive. In this instance, Moldex-Metric was awarded $1.9 million for filing the lawsuit. In addition, $645,000 was paid to relator’s counsel for their legal fees and expenses. After the whistleblower and their attorney was paid, the balance of the settlement went to the federal government. Generally, these monies are deposited into the agency’s settlement fund. In some instances, the monies are deposited with the United States Treasury. This money is meant to compensate the taxpayer for the fraud perpetrated on the general public and is not distributed to the individual veterans who may have been harmed. Servicemembers who have been impacted by the purportedly defective product must both file for veterans benefits as well as wage their own legal battle against the manufacturer of these earplugs. 

Why Are These Earplugs Alleged to Be Defective? 

The specific defect that is alleged with these earplugs relate to them not being the proper size. The problem is that these earplugs have been claimed to be too short on both ends of the earplugs. The inadequate size means that they are prone to move in the ear canal. When that happens, the earplugs provide less protection than they would if they had remained in place since they cannot provide the tight seal that is necessary to preserve the user’s hearing. The earplugs need to be in the ear canal in order to provide the protection that soldiers need. 

When these earplugs have moved, servicemembers have suffered various side effects that have impacted their hearing. Some veterans have experienced hearing loss that has ranged from partial to severe. Other servicemembers have been diagnosed with a condition called tinnitus, which will be described below. In fact, hearing problems are the most common disability for veterans to have and costs the United States Government billions of dollars in disability payments and care expenses for those who have these conditions. There are nearly 1.3 million veterans who suffer from tinnitus and another 1.1 million who have some form of hearing loss. Of course, not all of these veterans have experienced damage to their hearing from defective earplugs, but this issue certainly has served to increase the number of veterans who have suffered this damage. 

What is Tinnitus? 

Tinnitus is otherwise known as ringing in the ears. It can be caused by either a sudden loud blast or prolonged exposure to loud noises. These are the most common causes of tinnitus, although there may be other factors that are responsible for it. The truth of the matter is that, in a deployment environment, there could be a variety of things besides loud noises that can impact a servicemember’s well-being to the point where they experience tinnitus. 

Tinnitus is an uncomfortable and difficult sensation that can cause serious ongoing psychological and health issues. Many people suffer from this condition, but more severe cases can be extremely debilitating. Tinnitus may be associated with hearing loss, but one can suffer from this condition and have their hearing remain perfectly intact. Often, tinnitus is the first sign that one is experiencing hearing loss. 

Among veterans, the number of reported cases of tinnitus has skyrocketed as the United States has fought two wars this century. Military.com states that over 150,000 veterans were diagnosed with the condition just in 2015 and the number grows each year. The American Tinnitus Association reports that the number of veterans who file claims for tinnitus increases by 15 percent each year, but the rate of growth may eventually slow as foreign wars wind down and fewer servicemembers are deployed. The Veterans Administration keeps over 1,000 audiologists on staff at various locations across the country to help treat these disabled servicemembers. 

Tinnitus can be treated with many different types of therapies. There currently is no cure for this condition, but much research is being done towards that end. Some treatments currently in use focus on attempting to get the brain to stop sending the signal to the brain. One possible treatment that is being tested is a nerve implant that can send a signal to retrain the brain since tinnitus is partly a neurological condition. However, this treatment, if approved and effective, would be expensive given that it would require an invasive procedure. 

How Defective Earplugs Can Cause Tinnitus 

Defective earplugs can cause tinnitus by failing to protect the servicemember from loud sounds to which they may be exposed. While tinnitus is usually caused by prolonged exposure to these sounds, all it can take is one loud noise to permanently cause the condition. When soldiers are deployed, the loud noise would generally come from some sort of explosion. Earplugs need to be completely in the proper position to provide the maximum possible protection for a soldier. Earplugs that have shifted are ineffective and fail to provide the proper amount of protection. When earplugs are not long enough on either end, they stand a larger chance of shifting out of place. 

Product Liability Lawsuits Against 3M  | Combat arms earplug lawsuit

In addition to the qui tam lawsuit that 3M settled, there have been numerous other private lawsuits that have been filed against 3M. Given the sheer number of veterans who were given these combat earplugs to use while deployed, the volume of claims against 3M could be staggering by the time this litigation reaches its conclusion. While 3M was not required to admit liability for the defective earplugs as part of the terms of its settlement with the federal government, the company is likely facing a large amount of liability should it be found to be legally responsible for the condition that the veterans have suffered. This liability would far outweigh the amount of profits that 3M has realized from the sale of these earplugs. 

There is the potential for tens of thousands of veterans to file suits against 3M for the defective earplugs. 3M’s contract with the federal government called for it to provide approximately 750,000 pairs of these earplugs annually, and the company supplied these earplugs from the time it was awarded the contract in 2006 through the time that it discontinued the product in 2015. Hundreds of suits have already been filed in many different federal court districts. Given the publicity that the possible product defects received from the qui tam settlement, this is likely only the start of the lawsuits as numerous investigations are underway. There is a hearing of the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation in March 2019 which will determine whether all of the suits that have been filed will be consolidated for purposes of pre-trial and discovery matters. There is a difference between multidistrict litigation and a class action suit insofar as a class-action suit consolidates all of the claims in one single legal proceeding for the duration of the claim. Multidistrict litigation is often the process that is used when there are thousands of lawsuits filed across different states. 

Who Can File a military earplug lawsuit Against 3M 

Any veteran who has been given these earplugs and has suffered some sort of hearing damage is eligible to file a Combat arms earplug lawsuit in court provided that the lawsuit is brought within the applicable statute of limitations. In order to prevail at trial, a plaintiff would have to show that the earplugs were defective and that the hearing damage was caused, at least in part by the defective earplugs. 

It is unclear at this point how much veterans may receive if it is proven that these earplugs were defective, or if 3M settles these lawsuits. While 3M is contesting liability at this point, 3M may seek to enter into a global settlement of these claims and establish a settlement fund at some point. Many of these suits are seeking punitive damages beyond the usual claims for lost wages, pain and suffering and medical expenses. If a jury finds 3M liable and decides to assess punitive damages against 3M, the amount of recovery may skyrocket.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from Personal Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

Falling Victim to Inadequate Security: What Every Tenant has the Right to Know

Falling Victim to Inadequate Security: What Every Tenant has the Right to Know | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
If you are a tenant renting either residential or commercial property, you may think of your relationship with your landlord as merely one involving regular

Via Matthew A. Dolman
more...
Matthew A. Dolman's curator insight, March 1, 12:30 PM

If you are a tenant renting either residential or commercial property, you may think of your landlord as simply the person whom you pay your monthly rent. Florida law, however, recognizes that there is more to the landlord-tenant relationship than merely leasing space for one to live or conduct their business.

 

Besides just providing a place for someone to live, a landlord has many different responsibilities to their tenant. Likewise, a tenant has different responsibilities to the property owners as well. In this article, we will focus on just one responsibility the property owner has towards the tenant: security.

Reasonably Foreseeable Criminal Conduct

Under Florida law, a property owner has a duty to protect their tenant from reasonably foreseeable criminal conductBasically, a landlord bears some responsibility to their tenants to prevent and protect them from crime. This is a form of premises liability.

 

What does this mean for the area of personal injury law? It means that if you are ever in the frightening situation of being a victim to a crime on your landlord’s property, you may have a claim against them for damages resulting from your injuries.

(click on this article to learn more)

 

https://www.dolmanlaw.com/legal-services/premises-liability-attorneys/

Rescooped by David Slepkow from Personal Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

What to Do After a Concussion -

What to Do After a Concussion - | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Steps to Take Following a Concussion Many injuries suffered after an accident are visible to the naked eye—lacerations, puncture wounds, and bruises. But invisible injuries, such as concussions, are no less dangerous. If you suffered a blow to the head, seek medical treatment immediately and contact a personal injur

Via Matthew A. Dolman
more...
Matthew A. Dolman's curator insight, February 21, 5:59 PM

Many injuries suffered after an accident are visible to the naked eye—lacerations, puncture wounds, and bruises. But invisible injuries, such as concussions, are no less dangerous. If you suffered a blow to the head, seek medical treatment immediately and contact a personal injury attorney to see if you qualify for compensation.

What Is a Concussion?

Our skulls provide excellent protection to our brains. And spinal fluid surrounding the brain acts as a cushion, protecting your brain from slamming into the inside of your skull. But if you suffer any kind of blow to the head, that blow may shake your brain. If severe enough, this shaking can cause your brain to hit the hard inner shell of your skull, causing a concussion. In extreme cases, you might black out—but you don’t have to pass out to suffer a concussion.

(click on this article to learn more)

 

https://www.dolmanlaw.com/legal-services/brain-injury-attorneys/

Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Parietex Hernia Mesh Lawsuit vs. Covidien, Bard & Medtronic

Parietex Hernia Mesh Lawsuit vs. Covidien, Bard & Medtronic | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Parietex hernia mesh lawsuit.This hernia mesh article by an attorney focuses on Covidien Parietex hernia mesh as well as hernia mesh lawsuits in general.This defective hernia repair medical device (parietex mesh) product liability article pertains to pending litigation (hernia mesh lawsuit), lawsuit history as well symptoms, side effects and complications from such mesh. Many Covidien Parietex victims …
David Slepkow's insight:

Parietex hernia mesh lawsuit.This hernia mesh article by an attorney focuses on Covidien Parietex hernia mesh as well as hernia mesh lawsuits in general.This defective hernia repair medical device (parietex mesh) product liability article pertains to pending litigation (hernia mesh lawsuit), lawsuit history as well symptoms, side effects and complications from such mesh. Many Covidien Parietex victims are seeking a Parietex surgical mesh settlement 2018. Other victims are wondering what the average hernia mesh settlement will be in the future. Covidien was formerly Tyco. This article provides information to Covidien hernia mesh victims who suffered mesh complications as a result of hernia repair and are considering filing a hernia mesh lawsuit.

PARIETEX MESH

For some reason, many victims misspell Parietex mesh lawsuit as Paratex mesh lawsuit.  Many victims mistakenly believe that a parietex mesh recall is required to pursue a parietex mesh lawsuit. Many victims also wrongly believe that the mesh is spelled “pariatex mesh.” But we all know with google’s sophistication, the correct results will be found even if a victim types in “pariatex mesh” or “paratex mesh.”

Parietex hernia mesh settlement 2018?

Victims can read this post to determine what they need to know to get a Parietex mesh settlement rather than endlessly searching the internet for Hernia mesh settlement information. If you are considering filing a Covidien hernia mesh lawsuit to attempt to get a parietex settlement 2018, research what you need to know before filing a Parietex lawsuit. Many Covidien progrip mesh victims are wondering if  if a Covidien mesh recall is required to file a Covidien mesh lawsuit.

TYPES OF COVIDIEN HERNIA MESH WE ARE REVIEWING FOR LAWSUITS:

Covidien: (Formerly Tyco):

 Parietex  Parietex Composite Ventral Patch,  Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh  Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh  Parietex Plug and Patch System  Parietex Composite Open Skirt (PCO OS) Mesh  Parietex Optimized Open Skirt Mesh  Parietex Composite Parastomal (PCO PM) Mesh  Parietex Composite Hiatal Mesh (PCO 2H)  Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh  Parietex Folding Mesh  Parietex Flat Sheet Mesh  Parietex Lightweight Monofilament Mesh

SURGICAL MESH VICTIMS | PARIETEX MESH

Contact us, if you are seeking information about: covidien mesh lawsuit. Victims are searching the worldwide web seeking information about Parietex mesh and it’s symptoms and complications. Some victims are even spelling the name of the mesh as “pariatex mesh” or “paratex mesh.” Hernia mesh law firms and industry insiders are well aware that the proper spelling is “Parietex mesh” not “pariatex mesh” or paratex. If you are looking to file a mesh implant lawsuit as a result of Parietex mesh contact a top surgical mesh law firm. No victim should have to bear the brunt of hernia mesh pain and side effects without the satisfaction of seeking justice and accountability from the mesh manufacturers. It is imperative that surgical mesh victims do not miss a Statute of Limitations deadline for filing a Parietex hernia mesh lawsuit. If a Parietex mesh lawsuit is file after the statute of limitations, the Parietex hernia mesh lawsuit is subject to being dismissed by the Court.

SOME FDA ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS FOR PARIETEX INCLUDING VICTIM HERNIA MESH COMPLICATIONS INVOLVING HERNIA MESH REPAIR:

  •  Event date: 06/01/2011 Type of device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, Event Description: Procedure type: hernia. According to the rptr: during a re-operation, it was noticed that the mesh had a hole. The bowel was incarcerated through the hole in the mesh. The doctor stated that the suture stayed in the fascia and then pulled through the mesh. CatalogS Number
  • Event Date:  04/30/2012 Type of Device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, Event Description: According to the reporter: the customer reports that a pt, on whom the device has been applied some time ago, had to be re-operated. During the procedure, the surgeon found out that the intestine was sticking on the whole surface of the mesh. Catalog Number: PCO3020F
  • Event Date: 06/22/2009 Type of Device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, Event Description: Procedure type: hernia. According to the reporter: as patient was coming out of anesthesia, the patient tore out the product from the suture half at the fascia side as well as 3cm. The surgeon removed the product and used a c-quin mesh. Catalog Number: PCO3728
  • Event Date: 03/22/2011  Type of Device: PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH Event Description: Mesh product implanted during surgery for incisional hernia on (b)(6) 2011. Product split almost entirely in half and pt was returned to surgery on (b)(6) 2011 for removal and surgical repair. Catalog Number: PIF00365
  •  Event date:  07/13/2011  Type of device: COVIDIEN PARIETEX PROGRIP Event Description:  Pt called to report adverse reactions to covidien paritex progrip, which he had implanted on (b)(6) 2011, due to an inguinal hernia. Pt stated since implantation of the parietex progrip mesh, he experiences constant pain in his right testicle. He also stated he has severe pain starting in his right groin up to his belly button. He also experiences pain down the inside of his leg to the bottom of his foot. Pt also says he often feels an “electrical jolt” feeling between his testicle and leg, on the back of his knee, and where the pain ends up through his groin. He stated his lower abdominal area is also in constant pain and has spasms. Pt says he received no warning from his doctor or surgeon of possible adverse reactions or side effects, he was only told there is a 2% chance of reoccurrence. His everyday living has been severely impaired and he says he is basically disabled due to constant pain. Pt is concerned the mesh is possibly poisoning him since it’s made of polyester. He said he used to do auto body work and painted cars for 13 yrs, and was very used to things with “poly” in them. Now, he claims the smell of anything with “poly” in it makes him sick. He stated he takes pain medication, but it doesn’t really help. He says his sleep is disrupted, he sleeps very little due to pain, and the little amount of sleep causes some anxiety for him. He said he had the mesh implanted at (b)(6). https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2943724

JASON BRUCE  V.  C.R. BARD,  MEDTRONIC, INC., AND COVIDIEN, LP | HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT

Below you will find information about a recent  hernia mesh lawsuit against three companies related to Parietex Progrip Mesh .

Parietex Hernia Mesh Lawsuit lawyers

This lawsuit was filed by a Louisiana resident in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. According to the hernia mesh lawsuit, “His preoperative diagnosis was right inguinal hernia.” This product liability defective medical device lawsuit alleged that Parietex Progrip Mesh was defectively designed, dangerous and unsafe.

The victim alleged numerous complications as well as pain and suffering. He alleged  that the complications were caused by the mesh. The defendants were C.R. Bard, Davol, Medtronic Inc. and Covidien. The hernia mesh victim  acting by and through a top hernia mesh Plaintiff’s lawyer asserted that “Defendant, Covidien, LP, (“Covidien”) is a Delaware Limited Partnership and a subsidiary of Defendant, Medtronic, headquartered in Mansfield, Massachusetts.” Bruce v Medtronic Complaint.

HERE ARE SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE HERNIA MESH VICTIM, JASON BRUCE, AGAINST THE MESH MANUFACTURERS:

  • The Plaintiff alleged that Bard, Davol and Medtronic, “design, manufacture, market, package, label and sell medical devices, including a medical device known as the Parietex Mesh, a medical device implanted to treat persons like Plaintiff for hernias (also referred to as the “Covidien Product”)”
  • Surgeons performed “a repair of the hernia with mesh, plug and patch technique” utilizing Parietex Progrip Mesh (parietex mesh)
  •  According to the Parietex hernia mesh attorneys, “Due to defective design, defective manufacturing, defective construction/composition, inadequate warning, breach of express warranties, improper marketing, negligent marketing, and negligence by Defendants, the Product has caused Plaintiff severe and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to excruciating abdominal pain and swelling, difficulty walking, and physical pain and suffering, and economic losses.”
  • “Additionally, Plaintiff will have to undergo subsequent surgeries to remove and/or repair the damage and injuries caused by the Products”
  • The  Parietex hernia mesh lawyers asserted that: “The product has numerous defects that create a high risk of unreasonable and dangerous injuries and side effects with severe permanent adverse health consequences including that the material in the Product abrades tissues adversely affecting patient health and regularly fail to perform the purpose of its implantation such that the patient requires repair and/or removal of the Product and repeated treatment and surgery.” Id. (Complaint authored by some of the best hernia mesh lawyers in the Unites States)

KIMBERLY PELLEGRIN FILES A MESH LAWSUIT AGAINST COVIDIEN AND MEDTRONIC

On November 14, 2017 KIMBERLY PELLEGRIN filed a hernia mesh lawsuit against C.R. BARD, DAVOL, INC., MEDTRONIC, INC., AND COVIDIEN, LP in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. Ms. Pellegrin alleged in pertinent part:

  • “On October 25, 2014, Plaintiff was rushed to Leonard J. Chabert Medical Center in Houma,
    Louisiana, wherein she was diagnosed with a perforated duodenal ulcer. Plaintiff was also
    suffering from tachycardia, hypotension, sepsis, acute kidney injury, abnormal coagulation
    profile and gastrointestinal bleeding. Plaintiff underwent an ex-lap with primary repair of
    duodenal perforation and omental patch. During the operation, Plaintiff was implanted with
    the Products and Parietex Composite Mesh (i.e., “the Product”), products designed,
    manufactured, marketed, packaged, labeled, sold, and placed in the stream of commerce by
    Defendants.” Id.
  • “Due to defective design, defective manufacturing, defective construction/composition,
    inadequate warning, breach of express warranties, improper marketing, negligent
    marketing, and negligence by Defendants, the Product has caused Plaintiff severe and
    permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to excruciating abdominal pain and
    swelling, difficulty walking, and physical pain and suffering, and economic losses.”
  • “Additionally, Plaintiff has undergone subsequent surgeries to remove and/or repair the
    damage and injuries caused by the Products.” Id.
  • “The product has numerous defects that create a high risk of unreasonable and dangerous
    injuries and side effects with severe permanent adverse health consequences including that
    the material in the Product abrades tissues adversely affecting patient health and regularly
    fail to perform the purpose of its implantation such that the patient requires repair and/or
    removal of the Product and repeated treatment and surgery.”Id. Read the parietex surgical mesh complaint here

FEDERAL JUDGE DIMSISSES PARIETEX MESH LAWSUIT

“NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit involving Covidien Parietex Composite hernia repair mesh, ruling that while there is a question as to whether the claims are time-barred, the plaintiff failed to specify how the product was defective, or how it caused her injuries. However, in the June 20 order, Judge Sarah S. Vance granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint to replead her claims of defective construction or composition, inadequate warning, design defect, and breach of express warranty” https://harrismartin.com/article/23615/la-federal-judge-dismisses-parietex-hernia-mesh-case-allows-plaintiff-to-amend/

Read the Parietex hernia mesh dismissal decision here.

“ACCORDING TO THE FDA, THE MOST COMMON COMPLICATIONS FOLLOWING HERNIA MESH SURGERY INCLUDE:

  • Adhesions (mesh sticking to intestines)
  • Autoimmune reactions to mesh
  • Bowel or intestinal blockage
  • Fistulas (abnormal connections between organs)
  • Hernia recurrence
  • Infection
  • Mesh migration and rejection
  • Mesh shrinkage
  • Nerve damage
  • Organ perforations
  • Pain & bleeding
  • Seroma (fluid buildup at the surgery site)
  • Tenderness at the implant site” Drug watch

Many mesh victims are asking legitimate questions such as: “What are hernia mesh failure symptoms.” The purpose of this hernia mesh article is to answer questions such as: “What are hernia mesh failure symptoms”, “Was there ever a parietex mesh recall?”, “Why was there no parietex mesh recall.”

PARIETEX HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT PROBLEMS WITH MESH DEVICES – COMPLICATIONS AND SYMPTOMS

Hernia mesh victims report a variety of physical problems associated with mesh use. Mesh devices can cause pain and infection. Victims have reported recurrence of the hernia (hernia recurrence), adhesion of the mesh to body parts and obstruction and perforation of the bowel. All of these difficulties and complications can be life threatening. Many of the Parietex mesh devices allegedly pose specific problems in that they’re not all made of polypropylene like other mesh devices.

The hernia mesh attorneys representing the manufacturer is looking to delay, duck, defend and deny liability for their defective, dangerous and unsafe  medical device product. A Parietex hernia mesh attorney will fight corporate America relentlessly to get the victim Justice, compensation and restitution.  A Parietex mesh lawyer will fight to protect the rights of victims of medical devices.

POLYESTER MESH | COVIDIEN MESH

Many Parietex devices are made of polyester. The polyester is soft and flimsy compared to similar products made of polypropylene. This polyester causes a more severe inflammatory response than other mesh products produce. Victims report severe adverse reactions when the polyester devices are placed across the bowels. Although Parietex responded to the problems by applying coatings to cover the polyester in some cases, these coverings are often just as dangerous and result in the same or even worse complications.

A hernia mesh lawyer or a mesh attorney at a large product liability law firm with experience litigating medical device lawsuits will help aggrieved victims get the settlement or judgment that they are entitled to.

MARY LACASSIN  V. COVIDIEN LP AND MEDTRONIC, INC.

On January 12th, 2018 Mary Lacassin filed a hernia mesh lawsuit /  covidien mesh lawsuit against Covidien LP and Medtronic Inc. as a result of allegedly defective Parietex mesh implanted in her body.  This mesh lawsuit was filed in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION. In this Parietex lawsuit she alleges misrepresentations by Covidien as to the safety of the hernia mesh.

In pertinent part, she alleges “Parietex Composite Mesh was unreasonably dangerous as well as defective and likely to cause severe complications.” She further alleged that Covidien “maximize sales and profits at the expense of the health and safety of the general public and Plaintiff.” MARY LACASSIN V.  COVIDIEN LP AND MEDTRONIC, INC.  COMPLAINT

She did not stop there. She made very serious allegations that “Covidien and Medtronic acted in conscious disregard for the foreseeable harm caused by Parietex Composite Mesh in not adequately warning the FDA, the general public, the medical community, or Plaintiff of the numerous side effects, complications, and contraindications of Parietex Composite Mesh.” id.

She further alleged that “Contrary to the representations of Covidien and Medtronic, Parietex Composite Mesh has
a high rate of failure, injury, and complication; fails to perform as intended; and causes severe and irreversible injuries like those suffered by Plaintiff.” id.

ALLEGATIONS MADE IN MARY LACASSIN’S PARIETEX HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT

  • “Plaintiff is an individual of the full age of majority domiciled in Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, who was injured as a result of receiving defective hernia mesh researched, designed, developed, tested, manufactured, labeled, packaged, promoted, advertised, marketed, supplied, sold, and/or distributed by Defendants.” MARY LACASSIN V.  COVIDIEN LP AND MEDTRONIC, INC.  COMPLAINT
  • “Defendants conducted substantial business through the distribution of surgical mesh products as well as received significant compensation and profits from sales of surgical mesh products in Louisiana and the Western District of Louisiana. While conducting substantial business in Louisiana and the Western District of Louisiana, Defendants also made material misrepresentations and omissions of fact with regard to the effectiveness, safety, risks, side effects, contraindications, and complications related to surgical mesh products. In addition, Defendants directly or indirectly promoted, advertised, marketed, supplied, sold, and/or distributed surgical mesh products in Louisiana and the Western District of Louisiana.” id.
  • “In approximately November of 2011, Plaintiff underwent surgery to repair a hernia and Parietex Composite Mesh was implanted during the surgery.” id.
  • “As a result of the implantation of the unreasonably dangerous and defective Parietex Composite Mesh, Plaintiff suffered injuries including, but not limited to, scarring, pain, recurrence, and additional surgery.” id.
  • “The absorbable collagen barrier on the visceral side of Parietex Composite Mesh fails to protect the body from the hydrophilic three-dimensional polyester textile on the parietal side because the absorbable collagen barrier breaks down after coming in contact with moisture and tears easily during handling. The composition of polyester is also weak and Parietex Composite Mesh is known to unravel causing the polyester fiber to detach and travel to other parts of the body inciting an inflammatory response. Parietex Composite Mesh further contracts over time causing tension to increase where secured by tacks and sutures resulting in tearing.” id.

https://jc6kx1c9izw3wansr3nmip8k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018-1-12-parietex-lacassin-complaint.pdf

UNSEALED EDGES

In addition, Parietex mesh products often have unsealed edges. These edges can perforate the bowel. They can also fray and unravel in the body. When they fray, they can cause tearing. This causes recurrence of the original malady in addition to other problems.

INFECTIONS

In many cases, when an infection occurs, it’s not possible to treat the infection without removing the mesh. To remove the mesh, the surgeon has to take a significant portion of a person’s live tissue along with it. This can result in further complications and problems in an area where the patient is already dealing with the original injuries.

SYMPTOMS NOT IMMEDIATELY RECOGNIZED

Part of the problem with complications from mesh use is that the problems are not always readily apparent after a procedure. A mesh may not malfunction immediately, or a patient may not immediately recognize symptoms. An infection might take days, months or even years to show. This can pose a challenge for victims who might not know about their adverse event until years after they receive a mesh.

WHO IS MEDTRONIC?

“MEDTRONIC, INC. (“Medtronic”) is a for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota with its principal place of business in Minnesota at 710 Medtronic Parkway Northeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432.” MARY LACASSIN 
V.  COVIDIEN LP AND MEDTRONIC, INC. complaint

TRAINING MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO RECOGNIZE COMPLICATIONS

Too often, device Manufactures train professionals and surgeons only on the benefits of the mesh and how to use the product. In many cases, this training woefully fails to include how to recognize adverse reactions in patients. Treatment providers might tell victims that their symptoms are mental. They’re told that they have depression. Hernia mesh victims say that this lack of education for medical professionals has led to too many doctors and surgeons being trained to purchase and insert the devices and too few doctors trained to help patients who have an adverse reaction after the fact.

TYPES OF COVIDIEN PARIETEX MESH | HERNIA MESH

• Parietex – The family of mesh products that Covidien produces and sells to surgeons and other health-care providers.

• Parietex Composite Ventral Patch – A small patch meant for hernia repair, primarily of the abdominal wall. There are three sizes on the market.

Trade or proprietary name: Parietex Composite Ventral Patch
Common or usual name: Surgical Mesh
Classification name: Mesh, Surgical, Polymeric
Classification panel: General and Plastic Surgery (79)
Regulation: 21 CFR 878.3300
Product Code: FTL
Legally marketed devices to
which equivalence is claimed: Parietex Tm Composite Mesh (K040998)
Bard Ventralex® Patch (K021736 and K<024008)  (FDA)

• Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh – This mesh has micro grips, and it’s partially absorbable. It comes in a rectangular shape or pre-cut to fit the groin. “ProGrip(TM) Laparoscopic Self-Fixating Mesh – Seamlessly combines mesh and fixation into one device to increase the security of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, while eliminating the pain and reducing the costs associated with tack fixation.”  Business Wire

Read FDA 510(k) approval  letter for  Parietex ProGrip Self-Fixating Mesh,  Parietex™ Plug and Patch System and  ProGrip™ Laparoscopic Self-Fixating Mesh

• Parietex Optimized Composite Mesh – A mesh with a high number of tcks and large pores. 510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness

Name of device
Trade or proprietary name: PARIETEX Optimized Composite Mesh
Common or usual name: Surgical Mesh
Classification name: Mesh, Surgical, Polymeric
Classification panel: General and Plastic Surgery (79)
Regulation: 21 CFR 878.3300
Product Code: FTL
Legally marketed devices to
which equivalence is claimed: PARIETEXT Composite Mesh (K002699 and K040998)
Dermalon® suture (K930586)
BIOMESH® C.A.B. S Air (K072962) (Id)

• Parietex Plug and Patch System – A surgeon must place this mesh correctly on the first try. It has high infection rates, and the patient must have it removed if it becomes infected.

DATE PREPARED: May 28, 201 0
TRADE/PROPRIETARY NAME: PARIETEX Plug and Patch
COMMON/USUAL NAME: Surgical Mesh
CLASSIFICATION NAME: Mesh, Surgical, Polymeric
PREDICATE DEVICE(S): BARD” MESH PERFIX6 PLUG (K922916)
PARIETEX PROGRIP Mesh (K081 050)
PARIETEX Tm Lightweight Monofilament Polyester Mesh (K090858)
PARIETEX PARASTOMAL MESH (K081126)  (from 510k summary)

• Parietex Composite Open Skirt (PCO OS) Mesh – While Covidien markets this mesh for incision and hernia repair, its polyester components can cause complications including infection.

• Parietex Optimized Open Skirt Mesh – Covidien markets this type of mesh as more resistant to damage than its Composite products.

 Parietex Composite Parastomal (PCO PM) Mesh – This type of mesh has unsealed edges that are prone to tearing and unraveling.

• Parietex Composite Hiatal Mesh (PCO 2H) – A mesh that’s primarily for use around the esophagus.

• Parietex Hydrophilic Anatomical Mesh – Designed to cover specific body parts, this mesh is macroporous.

• Parietex Folding Mesh – This product contains a suture.

• Parietex Flat Sheet Mesh – These meshes look rectangular or square in shape. They come in a variety of sizes. Complications with this type of mesh are many of the typical problems associated with Parietex products.

• Parietex Lightweight Monofilament Mesh – While this mesh is lighter weight than some of Covidien’s other products, it has many of the same complications.

FDA approval info: K142908
Trade/Device Name: Parietex™ Lightweight Mesh
Regulation Number: 21 CFR 878.3300
Regulation Name: Surgical mesh
Regulatory Class: Class II
Product Code: FTL
Dated: October 7, 2014
Received: October 8, 2014 (510 k summary)

HERNIA MESH LAWSUIT HISTORY – CLAIMS, VERDICTS AND SETTLEMENTS

Complaints about all different types of mesh products began in the mid 2000s. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received more than 1,000 reports of  hernia mesh adverse events between 2005 and 2008. While they initially passed off the problems as rare, by 2011, they admitted that the products pose a serious and ongoing problem for victims across the country. As problems with hernia mesh products grew more apparent in the 2000s, victims began to bring legal cases for recovery.

Hernia mesh law firm with some of the best hernia mesh lawyers began preparing lawsuits to get compensation for victims.

In total, C.R. Bard has faced more than 11,300 suits in the past decade as a result of different types of mesh. These lawsuits cover not only Parietex products but also other mesh products that have caused severe damages to unsuspecting victims. Victims began to receive large jury verdicts as the cases went to trial.

In one case, a victim received a $20 million verdict against Johnson and Johnson for damages from a mesh product. In a 2012 case, a victim recovered $5.5 million. In a 2013 case, the victim recovered $2 million. These cases involved mesh products produced by other companies. However, the vast majority of the verdicts have been overwhelmingly positive for victims of all mesh products regardless of the producer.

“In 2011, C.R. Bard paid $184 million to settle more than 2,600 lawsuits filed in a Rhode Island multidistrict litigation for their Kugel Hernia Mesh.” https://www.classaction.com/hernia-mesh/settlement/

As these verdicts began to come down against C.R. Bard and other companies, C.R. Bard began to explore large-scale settlement of groups of claims. They saw settling the cases en masse as the only way to avoid bankruptcy. To that end, C.R. Bard authorized two large-scale settlements of claims. The first occurred in October, 2014. That settlement resolved approximately 500 cases. The company agreed to pay $21 million or approximately $43,000 per claim. The company authorized the second settlement in August, 2015. The settlement resolved approximately 11,000 cases.

Although the terms are confidential, the settlement set aside approximately $200 million to pay victims approximately $67,000 each. Because of the sheer number of victims in involved, the U.S. courts consolidated many cases in federal court in West Virginia. Other cases continue in state courts across the country. Cases continue to pour into American courts as victims continue to realize the extent of their injuries and damages. Plaintiffs appear to have strong cases. C.R. Bard appears to recognize the strength of the cases and pursue settlement.

LAWSUIT COMPONENTS – DEFECTIVE PRODUCT, FAILURE TO WARN, BREACH OF WARRANTY

Most of these lawsuits contain a number of counts. Specifically, many of the lawsuits include allegations of defective construction. That is, they state that the mesh companies made their products unreasonably dangerous for the user, or that they could have designed the products in a better way. The lawsuits also contain allegations that the company failed to adequately warn doctors about the dangers of the products. They say that proper warnings would have led doctors to make other choices for products or more quickly recognize adverse events. Finally, many of the lawsuits allege that mesh manufacturers breached their implied warranty to patients that their products were adequate and fit for use.

WHAT IS THE PARIETEX MESH COMPOSITION?

Many victims of parietex optimized composite mesh considering a mesh lawsuit 2018 are wondering what is the Parietex mesh material? According to propaganda set forth by Covidien, “Introduced in 1999, Parietex™ Composite (PCO) mesh was the first mesh to offer a resorbable collagen barrier on one side to limit visceral attachments and a three-dimensional polyester knit structure on the other to promote differentiated tissue ingrowth. Parietex™ Composite (PCO) mesh was ahead of its time
and remains the standard that others strive to reach.”  Covidien

 

501(K) APPROVAL PROCESS AND CRITICISMS

Surgical mesh products are supposed to work as internal organ support for patients who suffer hernias and other organ misplacement. However, patients have quickly learned that these products often cause infections, obstructions and pain, or they simply fail. These defective products have caused tens of thousands of legal claims as patients work to recover fair compensation and rebuild their lives. Medical device producer Covidien manufactures the Parietex brand of mesh devices.

HOW A MESH MEDICAL DEVICE WORKS

A mesh is a medical device that physicians use to treat conditions in the body. Most often, a mesh helps internal organs stay in their proper place. Today, most meshes are made of polypropylene. This is a polymer that’s used in many other applications like food storage containers, plastic chairs and lab equipment.

Because many Parietex meshes use polyester and other components in addition to and in place of polypropylene, their meshes are alleged to be particularly susceptible to infection. A mesh can be a permanent implant, or the body can absorb it over time. If a mesh is absorbable, it means that the body breaks down its materials, and the mesh disappears over time. It can also be non-absorbable. That means it stays in the body forever as a permanent implant. Medical professionals created the mesh to treat hernias.

WHAT IS A HERNIA?

A hernia occurs when an organ or tissue bulges through an abnormal opening. For example, if a part of your intestine or your bladder pokes through the intestinal wall, that’s a hernia. There are several different types of hernias. They’re classified based on where they happen in the body and how they occur. One type of hernia is an incisional hernia. It occurs because of a cut or a scar in the abdomen. This can be a complication that occurs because of a cut during surgery. When this type of hernia occurs, surgeons often turn to a mesh product to support the organ.

VICTIMS SEEKING INFORMATION

Victims across the United States and Canada are searching the internet for mesh information related to the following:

How do medical professionals treat a hernia?

When a hernia occurs, a medical professional evaluates the patient to see if the hernia causes the patient pain. If there’s no pain and the hernia itself isn’t likely to cause further problems or complications, the professional may advise the patient to simply monitor the hernia for comfort and future problems. In the majority of cases, a hernia requires surgery. The surgeon uses either sutures to close the wound, or they use a surgical mesh. In most cases, they use a mesh. Sutures are most appropriate for small hernias and infants, while a mesh is most common for adults and larger hernias. When choosing a mesh, a surgeon must consider its materials, the strength of the fabrics, its size and its pores. When a mesh is inherently defective, the patient can suffer an adverse reaction regardless of the physician’s care during implantation.

HISTORY OF MESH USE

Mesh use dates back to 1946. Developers originally designed mesh products to repair hernias, but they have since spread to vaginal use for incontinence and related pelvic organ shifting. In the early days, a mesh was made of metal which was typically stainless steel or tantalum. Early mesh devices commonly led to wound infections and chronic draining of the wound through sinuses in the mesh. These problems led to abandonment of metal mesh use by 1970. A physician first published use of a polypropylene mesh in 1958.

By the 1980s, the use of mesh to repair hernias became popular once again. By the 2000s, more than 90 percent of groin hernia repairs utilized a mesh device. Only this time, physicians used meshes made of polyester or polypropylene. Very quickly after they became popular, patients began to report pain and other negative effects from these devices. The Food and Drug Administration began to collect records of adverse events. From these events, lawsuits from victims have grown exponentially.

Today, mesh lawsuits comprise one of the largest mass tort claims in American history. Despite known problems, mesh devices continue to remain on the market, and device manufacturers continue to market their use to doctors for widespread use on unwitting patients.

COVIDIEN COMPANY HISTORY

Covidien is based in Ireland, but its roots date back to a Massachusetts textile mill in 1903. The mill produced cotton balls and later a range of health and hygiene products. The company merged with other medical device companies, until Tyco International acquired it and named it Covidien in 2007. The company now operates in 150 countries with more than 39,000 employees. Covidien produces a wide range of surgical products, medical supplies and respiratory products. The Parietex mesh products comprise a significant portion of the company’s business. In addition to problems with Parietex mesh products, Covidien’s line of products have been the subject of many other product recalls. To date, the company has recalled approximately a dozen different products in 2017 alone. The company has recalled other products in prior years.

What is Progrip mesh?

According to material drafted by Medtronic, Progrip mesh is described as follows: “Designed to address key issues in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, ProGrip™ laparoscopic self-fixating mesh delivers tack-free fixation over the entire anatomy2, including below the inguinal ligament where traditional tacks cannot be placed.

NEW VICTIMS MAY BRING CLAIMS

New victims continue to file claims against Covidien and C.R. Bard, as they realize the damages that they’ve suffered because of mesh products. The large settlements that have occurred to date are a positive sign that future victims have a path to receiving fair compensation for the injuries they suffer because of Covidien’s defective products. Lawsuits are likely to continue into the future as public awareness grows about the dangers associated with Covidien Parietex mesh products. Despite the public awareness many people still misspell Parietex mesh as: “paratex mesh” or “Pariatex hernia mesh.”

HOW DOES MEDTRONIC AND COVIDIEN DESCRIBE THE PARIETEX™ COMPOSITE VENTRAL PATCH?

“The Parietex™ composite ventral patch is a mesh specifically designed for small ventral hernia repair. The shape, size and the specific fixation and deployment system have been designed for optimal abdominal wall conformability and easy deployment and fixation1,2. In addition to these technical features, Parietex™ composite ventral patch has been designed to support tissue integration while minimizing tissue attachments with collagen1,2,3. The Parietex™ composite ventral patch offers a complete range of 3 product sizes (diameter: 4.6, 6.6 and 8.6 cm).” http://www.medtronic.com/covidien/en-us/products/hernia-repair/parietex-composite-ventral-patch.html

COVIDIEN/ SOFRADIM PARIETEX HERNIA MESH Back to Search Results Model Number 60566569 Event Date 12/02/2009 Event Type  Injury Event Description Hernia mesh failed needed new surgery on (b)(6) 2010. Used paritex mesh. First mesh was not found when they did 2 surgeries. Just had a cat scan done and they found it at the bottom of my stomach.   Search Alerts/Recalls COVIDIEN PARIETEX COMPOSITE MESH, SURGICAL, POLYMERIC Back to Search Results Model Number N/A Event Date 05/21/2014 Event Type  Malfunction Manufacturer Narrative     Event Description Removal of infected mesh. Infected parietex mesh with subfascial abscess.   Search Alerts/Recalls COVIDIEN COVIDIEN PARIETEX PROGRIP HERNIA MESH Back to Search Results Lot Number SK700377 Event Date 07/13/2011 Event Type  Injury Event Description Pt called to report adverse reactions to covidien paritex progrip, which he had implanted on (b)(6) 2011, due to an inguinal hernia. Pt stated since implantation of the parietex progrip mesh, he experiences constant pain in his right testicle. He also stated he has severe pain starting in his right groin up to his belly button. He also experiences pain down the inside of his leg to the bottom of his foot. Pt also says he often feels an “electrical jolt” feeling between his testicle and leg, on the back of his knee, and where the pain ends up through his groin. He stated his lower abdominal area is also in constant pain and has spasms. Pt says he received no warning from his doctor or surgeon of possible adverse reactions or side effects, he was only told there is a 2% chance of reoccurrence. His everyday living has been severely impaired and he says he is basically disabled due to constant pain. Pt is concerned the mesh is possibly poisoning him since it’s made of polyester. He said he used to do auto body work and painted cars for 13 yrs, and was very used to things with “poly” in them. Now, he claims the smell of anything with “poly” in it makes him sick. He stated he takes pain medication, but it doesn’t really help. He says his sleep is disrupted, he sleeps very little due to pain, and the little amount of sleep causes some anxiety for him. He said he had the mesh implanted at (b)(6). COVIDIEN PARIETEX MESH Back to Search Results Event Date 01/09/2013 Event Type  Injury Event Description In (b)(6) 2013, using parietex mesh made by covidien, i had transesophageal repair of a hiatal hernia. In (b)(6) 2013, it was discovered that the mesh had migrated to my stomach causing an ulcer and infection. In (b)(6) 2013, i had removal of most of the mesh, along with part of my stomach. Some of the mesh had to be left on my liver and large blood vessels. I have since been diagnosed with gastroparesis and am on a very strict diet. I have continuous severe pain over the operative site.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from California Personal Injury Attorney Information
Scoop.it!

What Rights Do You Have if You Get Let Go From Your Job After 50 Years Old?

What Rights Do You Have if You Get Let Go From Your Job After 50 Years Old? | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Free Consultation - Call (866) 966-5240 - Steven M. Sweat is dedicated to providing our clients with legal services in Employment Discrimination and Harassment cases. What Rights Do You Have if You Get Let Go From Your Job After 50 Years Old? - Los Angeles Employment Discrimination Lawyer

Via Steven M. Sweat
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Blood Poisoning - Sepsis & Septic Shock from Hernia Mesh

Blood Poisoning - Sepsis & Septic Shock from Hernia Mesh | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Hernia mesh has proven to be dangerous on a number of fronts. In addition to allergic reactions that patients could have and shifting of the hernia mesh, the composition and makeup of the mesh can cause poisoning. Specifically, the mesh can cause bacteria to enter the blood. The presence of bacteria can cause an infection …
David Slepkow's insight:

Hernia mesh has proven to be dangerous on a number of fronts. In addition to allergic reactions that patients could have and shifting of the hernia mesh, the composition and makeup of the mesh can cause poisoning. Specifically, the mesh can cause bacteria to enter the blood. The presence of bacteria can cause an infection which can lead to progressively worse problems such as sepsis, septic shock, and even death. If you have had hernia surgery with mesh implanted and have experienced a post-operative infection, it is vital that you contact a hernia mesh lawyer immediately to learn your legal rights.

WHAT IS HERNIA MESH USED FOR?

There are several different types of hernias as well as ways to repair the hernia. When a patient has a hernia, the muscles are protruding through a weakness in the muscle wall. In the past, the most prevalent way of fixing a hernia was to directly sow the hole. This led to a lengthier recovery time from the surgery. Hernia mesh became an alternative to this type of surgery. Instead of sewing the hole closed, surgeons would sew hernia mesh over the hole. There are some benefits to the use of mesh, primarily that the rate of recurrence of the hernia is lower than in surgeries where the hole is sowed shut.

The outcome after the mesh was implanted depended on the type of mesh. Certain meshes are biological and are degradable. When these types of meshes are used, healthy tissue grows around it as the mesh disintegrates. Other types of meshes are more permanent. Healthy tissue will still grow, but the mesh will remain in the body covering the hole. This type of mesh needs to remain strong and intact in order to perform its intended function.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MESH?

The most prevalent type of surgical mesh is made out of a type of plastic and does not disintegrate. This material is called polypropylene. Hernia mesh manufacturers have stated that their product is inert. In other words, there would not be oxidation or degradation over the course of its lifetime. When hernia meshes oxidize and are exposed to other elements, they may change composition. This will lead to post-operative complications for a patient. Since polypropylene mesh is a foreign material, it is an ideal breeding ground for the colonization of bacteria.

INFECTIONS FROM HERNIA MESH

One of the possible complications for a patient is an infection. This is one of the more severe side effects that a hernia mesh recipient can experience. According to a 2007 paper, the infection rate among hernia mesh recipients can be as high as ten percent. While the risk of infection is most prevalent in the immediate weeks after the surgery, so long as the mesh is in the patient’s body, there is always the risk of infection. Generally, the more mesh that a surgeon uses, the higher the likelihood of an infection in the patient.

These infections may not be a one-time occurrence for the patient. Hernia related infections can be chronic and recurring. In that event, the infections become a debilitating, and perhaps a life threatening event. Beyond not being able to work or carry on normal life functions, a patient’s health can be severely degraded from these infections.

There are several different ways that a patient can contract an infection from hernia mesh. The first is through what is known as blood poisoning. This is when toxins from the infection reach the bloodstream. In addition, a biofilm can form on the hernia mesh. When this occurs, antibiotics will not make the infection go away, and surgery is needed to remove the mesh in order to prevent further infection.

The second type of infection is when the mesh shrinks or migrates. In this instance, it can perforate internal organs. When that happens, contents from the intestines and bowels can travel to the rest of the body causing a more severe infection.

SEPSIS AND SEPTIC SHOCK

In the worst scenario, a patient with a mesh infection can experience sepsis. This occurs when the body releases chemicals in order to fight an infection. This stage is reached after the infection reaches the bloodstream. The body’s natural instinct is to do whatever it can to rid itself of an infection. Essentially, the immune system turns on itself in an effort to fight the infection. However, these chemicals that are released can have a major effect on the organs in the body. When these chemicals cause an imbalance in the body, it is called sepsis. This condition can lead to a failure of the body’s major organs.

When a patient experiences sepsis, it can possibly lead to septic shock if it progresses far enough. This is an extremely dangerous condition that usually causes death for half of the patients who have reached this state. When a patient experiences septic shock, the body cannot provide adequate blood to the organs and blood pressure becomes dangerously low. This can cause kidney failure, heart failure or multiple organ failure. This will require treatment in an ICU.

HERNIA MESH LAWSUITS

There have been multiple lawsuits filed against manufacturers of hernia mesh. Most of these cases are early in their life cycles. There was a large suit against C.R. Bard, a manufacturer of hernia mesh, that settled in 2011. As part of the settlement, C.R. Bard paid $184 million to settle 2 600 claims against it. Currently, there are also lawsuits pending against Johnson & Johnson, who is the manufacturer of Physiomesh, which is the highest-selling hernia mesh on the market. Atrium Medical is the other major manufacturer that is currently defending against litigation relating to defective hernia mesh. There are also thousands of cases filed against Bard / Davol as a result of allegations that their mesh is defective. The vast majority of the hernia mesh lawsuits result from mesh made of polypropylene.

If you have had a hernia where mesh was implanted and you have contracted an infection, you should contact a hernia mesh lawyer immediately. The surgical mesh attorney can discuss your legal case with you and inform you of the prospects for receiving compensation for your infection.

Sources:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sepsis/symptoms-causes/syc-20351214

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Should I refuse to submit to breathalyzer test in RI?

Should I refuse to submit to breathalyzer test in RI? | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
CALL Rhode Island drunk driving (DUI / DWI) and breathalyzer criminal defense attorney, David Slepkow 401-437-1100.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by David Slepkow
Scoop.it!

Asbestos and Mesothelioma Lawsuits and Complications – Defects Lawyer

David Slepkow's insight:

Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that affects roughly 3,000 individuals each year in the U.S. According to reports, the form of cancer was linked originally with asbestos building supplies that were used in the construction of factories, mills, and shipyards. However, the asbestos products were also used in constructing residential properties as well. With the growing number of mesothelioma cases by the 1970s, government agencies moved to lower the risks associated with asbestos.

Understanding the Law and Asbestos

Asbestos lawsuit attorney

In the 1970s, the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act were passed to manage how asbestos was used and to regulate the disposal of the materials. Unfortunately, even with the new laws in place, businesses continued to use asbestos in industrial spaces, and more workers developed the occupational disease and died. This lead to the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out Rule in 1989.

OSHA Regulations and Workers Compensation

 According to OSHA regulations, all industrial spaces where asbestos was used must undergo renovations to remove the building materials and prevent common risks to workers. If the employer failed to comply, OSHA retains the right to take legal action against the employer, and workers can utilize their rights to worker’s compensation coverage and benefits according to federal laws. The laws require the employer to send workers to an ER or urgent care facility for testing if they suspect that the worker has developed the disease. Any evidence of mesothelioma is managed initially through the worker’s compensation claims for the occupational disease.

How Do Workers Develop Mesothelioma?

The asbestos building material is distributed throughout the workplace in the form of dust. Over time, the material wears down and dust falls from it. If renovations or repairs are conducted, workers could be exposed to the dust as they drill into the materials. However, the workers inhale the dust as it spreads through ventilation systems primarily. The prolonged exposure or inhalation of the dust leads to the development of mesothelioma.

Are There Different Types of Mesothelioma?

Yes, there are four different types of mesothelioma. The cancer affects the lungs, heart, abdomen, or testicles. Once the location of the disease is discovered, the doctor establishes if the patient has sarcomatoid, epithelioid, or biphasic forms of the disease. According to statistics, around 75% of mesothelioma cases involve epithelioid cancer cells. 10% of the cases are sarcomatoid, and 40% are biphasic. Pleural mesothelioma affects the lungs, and the form of the disease represents about 75% of the cases reported. Peritoneal or abdomen mesothelioma represents about 20% of the cases. Pericardial or heart-related mesothelioma is about 1% of the cases reported in the U.S.

How is Mesothelioma Diagnosed?

Doctors perform physical examinations to identify the location of tumors. CT scans are used to find tumors within the organ system. Biopsies are used to determine if the tumor is malignant or benign. The process could include aspiration with a fine needle, laparoscopy, thoracotomy, laparotomy, or thoracoscopy. Doctors may also perform an MRI or PET scan to diagnose the patient, too.

Is Mesothelioma a Death Sentence?

Patients who have mesothelioma tumors almost always have malignant tumors. It is rare for the doctors to find a benign tumor when diagnosing the disease. For a majority of patients who are diagnosed, the disease is a death sentence. In very rare cases, the disease responds to traditional cancer treatments, and the patient could survive. Doctors can provide chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical removal of tumors to treat the symptoms of the disease, and patients could prolong their life up to twenty-one months. However, at this time there isn’t a known cure for the disease.

What are Risk Factors for Mesothelioma?

Any workers who work within an environment were asbestos is present are at risk of developing mesothelioma. Their family members that come in direct contact with their clothing or their person are also at risk of exposure to the asbestos dust. It is recommended that the worker remove any work attire that is covered in the asbestos dust before entering their home to lower the risk to their family.

 

The Legal Rights of Workers and Their Family

Workers who aren’t compensated fully by worker’s compensation have the legal right to start an asbestos lawsuit. The legal action is an attempt to collect payments for all medical treatment associated with the treatment of mesothelioma and the collection of wages lost due to the development of the disease. Employers may offer a settlement for the worker due to their diagnosis and prognosis.

If any direct members of the worker’s family develop the disease, the employer is responsible for their medical treatment and may offer a settlement due to their liability. However, in most cases, the family must file a legal claim to try to collect compensation for linked cases of the disease.

If the worker dies as a result of mesothelioma, the family could file a wrongful death lawsuit against the employer or their insurer. The claim could lead to the acquisition of lifetime earnings for the worker. The family could also claim certain tort-based options due to the loss of financial support, loss of companionship for spouses, and mental anguish. An attorney explains which options are available to the family when the claim is started.

Class Action Lawsuits Against the Employer

If multiple workers were exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma, an attorney could start a class action lawsuit. Under the circumstances, the attorney works with the patients who are at the greatest risk at the time that the claim is filed. When a high volume of workers develop an occupational disease due to the same employer’s failures, the litigants go to court in groups. They start with individuals who are terminal first and continue down the list of litigants based on their prognosis.

Workers or their family members who have been diagnosed with any form of mesothelioma must act quickly to file a legal claim. The disease is terminal and while it is treatable in some stages, there isn’t a cure. Patients who developed the disease due to the failures of their employers have the right to seek damages. Workers or families who want to start a legal claim are encouraged to contact an attorney right now.

Sources:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mesothelioma/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20375028 
https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/mesothelioma/statistics 
https://www.asbestos.com/legislation/ban/ 
https://www.mesothelioma.com/treatment/

 

(888) 735-7881

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 2018 · DEFECTS LAWYER · E&OEATTORNEY DAVID SLEPKOW AT SLEPKOW SLEPKOW & ASSOCIATES INC., ESTABLISHED IN 1932, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE. SS &A’ S PRINCIPAL OFFICE IS LOCATED AT: 1481 WAMPANOAG TRAIL EAST PROVIDENCE RI. CLIENTS WILL BE NOT ACCEPTED IN THOSE STATES IN WHICH STATE BAR RULES DO NOT ALLOW. DAVID IS LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. DAVID SLEPKOW WAS A LONGTIME MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL COURT FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF RI. THE HIRING OF AN LICENSED ATTORNEY IS A VERY CRUCIAL DECISION FOR A CLIENT. THIS IMPORTANT DECISION SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY MADE BASED ON ADVERTISING OR ON A WEBSITE. THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ADVERTISEMENT OR SOLICITATION. INFORMATION, ARTICLES, CONTENT AND OPINIONS ON THIS WEBSITE AND BLOG IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR SOLICITATION OF LEGAL SERVICES. INFORMATION FROM THIS SITE OR IT’S TRANSMISSION IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. THE RECEIPT OF SUCH HERNIA MESH INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE, AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLEPKOW SLEPKOW & ASSOCIATES INC. AND THE READER OR VISITOR. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY INFORMATION ON THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT FULLY CONFORM TO REGULATIONS, LAWS OR CASE LAW IN ANY JURISDICTION, THIS LAW FIRM WILL NOT ACCEPT SUCH CLIENTS.. IN CERTAIN STATES THIS HERNIA MESH ATTORNEY BLOG MAY BE DEEMED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. WE AT SLEPKOW SLEPKOW ASSOCIATE’S INC..HAVE MADE EVERY EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH ALL ADVERTISING LAWS AND RULES. THE RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT LICENSES ALL LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS IN THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW, BUT DOES NOT LICENSE OR CERTIFY ANY LAWYER / ATTORNEY AS AN EXPERT OR SPECIALIST IN ANY FIELD OF PRACTICE. WHILE THIS FIRM MAINTAINS JOINT RESPONSIBILITY, MOST CASES OF THIS TYPE ARE REFERRED TO OTHER ATTORNEYS FOR PRINCIPLE RESPONSIBILITY
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by David Slepkow from Personal Injury Attorney News
Scoop.it!

Why Semi-Trucks Are So Dangerous

Why Semi-Trucks Are So Dangerous | Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorney | Scoop.it
Semi-Trucks Can Cause Exceptionally Catastrophic Accidents Tractor-trailers and semi-trucks weigh many tons and travel at very high rates of speed. When a

Via Matthew A. Dolman
more...
Matthew A. Dolman's curator insight, October 27, 2018 10:14 PM

Semi-Trucks Can Cause Exceptionally Catastrophic Accidents

Tractor-trailers and semi-trucks weigh many tons and travel at very high rates of speed. When a semi-truck collides with a smaller vehiclethe result can be catastrophic and deadly, due to the sheer force of the impact. Tractor-trailers also routinely carry cargo, such as logs, which can dislodge from the trailer and into the road. When that happens, serious motor vehicle accidents can occur. For example, the cargo could dislodge from the trailer onto the roadway and into the windshield of a smaller vehicle, causing serious injuries or deaths.

 

If a tractor-trailer or semi impacts your vehicle at a high rate of speed, you can sustain serious damages, some of which may end up being permanent. Those injuries can include traumatic brain injuries, fractures, broken bones, soft tissue injuries, muscle contusions, spinal cord injuries, paralysis, and lifelong disability. Moreover, the accident victim may be able to recover monetary compensation for all of the injuries and damages suffered, including compensation for medical and physical therapy bills, lost wages, lost earning capacity, related mental health issues, loss of earning capacity, permanent impairment, and loss of enjoyment of life, among other damages.

(click on this article to learn more)

 

https://www.dolmanlaw.com/legal-services/truck-accident-attorneys/