MedWorm Sponsor Message: Please support the Doctors In Chains campaign for the medics tortured and sentenced for up to 15 years in Bahrain. #FreeDoctors
Fosamax-related litigation is moving forward in both federal and state courts. The latest Fosamax lawsuit news occurred on February 27, 2012 when the sixth Fosamax trial began in the Superior Court for Atlantic County, New Jersey. The two cases, which are being tried together, are Flores v. Merck and Sessner v. Merck. Plaintiffs in both cases allege that their Fosamax use caused them to develop osteonecrosis of the jaw (“ONJ”). Opening statements are scheduled to commence on Thursday, March 1, 2012. This Fosamax trial is part of In re: Fosamax Litigation, which is a consolidation of all Fosamax lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts. Because the side effects of Fosamax include femur fractures and ONJ both types of lawsuits have been consolidated into one mass tort action; the Honorable Carol E. Higbee is overseeing the state court litigation. The last Fosamax lawsuit news update in the state court action occurred in November 2011. At that time, Judge Higbee ordered that the ONJ cases would be tried first; jury trials involving the Fosamax femur fracture claims would follow. Because Merck, the manufacturer of Fosamax, is defending both groups of cases, there is overlapping discovery. For example, many of the same documents produced by Merck will be used by plaintiffs as evidence to support both the ONJ and femur fracture claims. Therefore, the lawyers at Bernstein Liebhard LLP have been carefully monitoring Fosamax lawsuit news and developments in the ONJ cases in order to anticipate issues that may arise when litigating the upcoming femur fracture claims.
In addition to the recent Fosamax lawsuit news on the state court level, on February 3, 2012, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered that all Fosamax lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide by individuals alleging that they sustained an atypical femur fracture as a result of taking the bisphosphonate, can also include plaintiffs who took similar medications such as Reclast or Boniva as long as they did, in fact, take Fosamax. When the Fosamax femur fracture multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) was originally formed, it was restricted to femur fracture claims brought by plaintiffs who only took Fosamax. In deciding to expand the Fosamax femur fracture MDL, the JPML noted that because the side effects of Fosamax are similar to other bisphosphonates, the MDL should include femur fracture claims brought by plaintiffs who used other types of bisphosphonates in addition to Fosamax. Thus, this federal Fosamax lawsuit news is particularly noteworthy. Individuals permitted to file femur fracture claims in the Fosamax femur fracture MDL are no longer limited to those who solely took Fosamax. Now that the JPML has ordered that mixed cases (those filed by plaintiffs who took Fosamax and another bisphosphonate) be included and transferred to the ongoing Fosamax femur fracture MDL, plaintiffs who were originally barred from having their femur fracture claims included in the consolidated action can now participate.
Fosamax was introduced by Merck in 1995. Before it became available in generic form, Fosamax sales topped $3 billion annually. Currently, more than 2,000 cases involving either ONJ or femur fracture claims have been filed and are pending against Merck in either state or federal court. Although Merck is defending against two distinct allegations, the only Fosamax lawsuits that have gone to trial are those in which plaintiffs allege that their Fosamax use caused them to develop ONJ. None of the Fosamax trials to date have involved femur fracture claims.
Because taking Fosamax can cause a variety of severe, potentially permanent health problems, many afflicted patients have sought compensation by filing individual Fosamax lawsuits. The lawyers at Bernstein Liebhard LLP are actively reviewing Fosamax femur fracture claims. If you suffered a femur fracture, our team of Fosamax attorneys can help you seek compensation for your injuries.
If you or a loved one took Fosamax and suffered an atypical femur fracture, contact us today to learn more about your legal options.
Zimmer Holdings Inc. manufactures the Durom Cup hip implant, a metal-on-metal device designed to improve patient range of motion, especially in younger, more active device recipients. However, a 2008 study by Dr. Lawrence Dorr revealed that Zimmer’s implant showed a high failure rate – about 8.5%.
In response to Dr. Dorr’s results, Zimmer claimed that the product failure rates could be attributed to improper device implantation and poor surgical techniques. After a three-month suspension of sales, the device manufacturer put the Durom Cup back on the market and re-issued its surgical instructions. As of 2011, the Durom Cup is still available for sale.
To qualify a product for mandatory product recall, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has strict requirements. There are three recall classifications – Class I, Class II, and Class III – and each has its own set of contributing factors.
A Class I recall is the most serious, and is only issued in cases where the FDA determines that a product “will cause serious health problems or death.” In this were the case, the FDA would require Zimmer Holdings Inc. to notify its clients and implant recipients of the recall and the reasons behind it. By FDA requirements, Zimmer would also have to take steps to remedy the dangers associated with its product.
Class II recalls represent a step down on the severity ladder, and describe products that have the potential to create serious health problems. If the Durom Cup hip implant were subject to a Class II recall, Zimmer would be required to inform it customers of the device’s risks, but would not have to contact recipients of the device. A Class III FDA recall is issued when the organization determines that one of its regulations has been violated.
In February 2011, the FDA issued a public warning regarding the risks and problems associated with metal-on-metal hip implants, such as Zimmer’s Durom Cup device. In May 2011, the FDA also announced that all metal-on-metal device manufacturers, including Zimmer, would be required to conduct post-market studies to determine their products’ long-term performance.
Results of Zimmer’s studies, or a future FDA Zimmer recall, could have an impact on current Zimmer hip lawsuits. Since 2009, plaintiff complaints have been consolidated into federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is headquartered in New Jersey.