Depuy Recalls Total Hip Systems

Image via Wikipedia

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., announced it is voluntarily recalling the ASR™ XL Acetabular System and DePuy ASR™ Hip Resurfacing System used in hip replacement surgery. According to some reports, 1 in 8 patients with these hips required a replacement surgery, also known as revision surgery, to replace the implants. The risk for revision was higher with ASR head sizes below 50 mm in diameter and among female patients. Many observers expect this already high failure rate to increase dramatically as problems with the DePuy ASR hip systems become more widely publicized.


Depuy issued the following statement: "We regret that this recall will be concerning for patients, their family members and surgeons," said David Floyd, president, DePuy Orthopaedics. "We are committed to assisting patients and health care providers by providing information through multiple channels and paying for the cost of doctor visits, tests and procedures associated with the recall."

Denying that its decision to do so was related to reports of failures of the ASR systems, late last year DePuy ceased sales of the products. By that time, almost 100,000 of the systems had been implanted in patients worldwide. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is the orthopedic subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson.

Unfortunately, DePuy's recall of the ASR systems comes too late for patients that were sold these devices. Unlike most product recalls, this recall is for a product that has been implanted in a person's hip. As a result, the recalled product can only be replaced with the patient going through a painful and debilitating surgery and rehabilitation.

Attorney Chris Hellums and the firm of Pittman Dutton & Hellums has previously represented individuals numerous medical product failure claims. For a free case evaluation, contact Chris Hellums at Chrish@PittmanDutton.com or toll free at 866-515-8880.

Related articles by Zemanta

• J&J unit recalls hip replacement products (usatoday.com)

DEADLINE LOOMING FOR FILING CHINESE DRYWALL CLAIMS

SEPTEMBER 3RD DEADLINE FOR KNAUF INTERVENTIONS IN MDL


The Plaintiffs Steering Committee has extended the deadline for accepting additional claims against Knauf to be included on interventions until Friday, September 3, 2010 at 5 ET. It is doubtful that this deadline will be extended. Knauf, one of the largest manufacturers of defective Chinese Drywall, has accepted service for home owners in the MDL litigation out of New Orleans. A majority of the defective drywall was imported into the United States between 2005 and 2007.

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon ordered Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co. Ltd., a committee of attorneys representing plaintiffs and certain drywall installers, suppliers and insurers to participate in mediation in New Orleans. Fallon wanted the parties to discuss the "global resolution of claims," according to an entry in the court record. Fallon "encouraged all parties to consider global settlement rather than individual resolution of claims."

Knauf Gips, a family-owned German company with operations throughout the world, has argued for almost two years that it is not legally responsible for the millions of pounds of defective drywall that one of its subsidiaries in China has admitted exporting to the United States. But documents filed in Germany and in U.S. courts show that Knauf’s German umbrella company is closely involved in the management of its subsidiaries, including overseeing quality control, finding raw materials and dealing with rising concerns over the defective drywall.

If you believe you have defective Chinese drywall in your home and experienced repeated AC coil failures, electrical issues, appliance failures, tarnished fixtures, sulfur odors in your home and/or suffer with respiratory issues, nose bleeds, headaches and or unexplained rashes, please contact me.

FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT BOOTH SAMUELS AT BOOTHS@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880.

Is Miracle Mineral Solution or MMS the next Total Body Formula?

Image via Wikipedia

The F.D.A is warning consumers of "serious harm" from drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS).

According to the F.D.A, the product, when used as directed, produces an industrial bleach that can cause serious harm to health.   Side effects include severe nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening low blood pressure from dehydration.
MMS is distributed on Internet sites and online auctions by multiple independent distributors. Although the products share the MMS name, the look of the labeling may vary.

The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment.
Unbelieveably, MMS claims to treat multiple unrelated diseases, including HIV, hepatitis, the H1N1 flu virus, common colds, acne, cancer, and other conditions.
The FDA continues to investigate and may pursue civil or criminal enforcement actions as appropriate to protect the public from this potentially dangerous product.

If you have suffered any negative side effects, consult a health care professional as soon as possible and retain the product.

This product recall is similar to the F.D.A recall of Total Body Formula, a vitamin supplement which was recalled after it was found to have toxic levels of selenium.

FOR A FREE CASE EVALUATION, CONTACT CHRIS HELLUMS AT CHRISH@PITTMANDUTTON.COM OR CALL TOLL FREE 1-866-515.8880
.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) (nlm.nih.gov)
• FDA Warns Consumers of Serious Harm from Drinking Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) (prnewswire.com)
• Can it get any worse?: industrial bleach as cancer and HIV cure (sciencebasedmedicine.org)

Debt Collection Companies Being Sued for Harrasment & Deceptive Tade Practices in Ohio, West Virginia, & New York

Ohio Attorney General filed a lawsuit Wednesday against a Cleveland debt collection agency
after getting calls from more than 200 Ohio residents complaining of threats, harassment and deception. Read the Ohio AG lawsuit here.

National Enterprise Systems of Solon, Ohio is accused of illegal collection practices.

The lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

According to the lawsuit, debt collectors with National Enterprise Systems of Solon used abusive language, failed to verify debts and made unauthorized withdrawals from consumer bank accounts in violation of state and federal law.

Officials in West Virginia have also filed a similar lawsuit against the firm. Read the WV complaint here.


New York Attorney General has shut down a New York collection operation that consisted of at least nine debt collection companies across Western New York, run by Buffalo resident Tobias Boyland.

According to hundreds of consumer complaints filed with law enforcement agencies across the country, Boyland's employees violated state and federal law by routinely posing as law enforcement officials, threatening to arrest consumers and throw them in jail unless they made arrangements to pay the company immediately.

The Attorney General filed suit against Central Resource Management, Final Claims Asset Locators, Final Control Asset Locators, Interchange Payment Solutions, Next Step Services, Portfolio Asset Assurance, Silverbay Services, and Teleport..

Read the NY Complain Here.


Read the article here: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2009/07/22/Collection_agency_lawsuit.ART_ART_07-22-09_A6_8LEHS6P.html?sid=101

Minnesota Attorney General Sues National Arbitration Forum for Fraud, Misrepresentation, Deceptive Trade Practices

Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson filed suit this week against the National Arbitration Forum of Minnesota, the nation's largest arbitration company for consumer credit disputes, accusing it of consumer fraud, false advertising and deceptive trade practices by "misrepresenting its independence" and hiding its "extensive ties" to the collection industry.

The Attorney General's lawsuit claims the National Arbitration Forum has ties to debt-collection law firms and works against consumers by virtue of having a mandatory arbitration clause set forth in a credit card, bank, or retail contracts. Hundreds of thousands of consumer disputes are resolved each year not by a judge or jury, but by a private arbitration system.

The Attorney General’s suit alleges that the National Arbitration Forum represented to consumers and the public that it is independent and neutral, operates like an impartial court system, and is not affiliated with and does not take sides between the parties.

The lawsuit alleges that the National Arbitration Forum, while holding itself out as impartial, works behind the scenes—alongside creditors and against the interests of ordinary consumers—to convince credit card companies and other creditors to insert arbitration provisions in their customer agreements and then appointing the Forum to decide the disputes.

The lawsuit alleges that the Forum pays commissions to executives whose job it is to convince creditors to put mandatory arbitration clauses in their customer agreements. The suit alleges that the Forum does this to generate arbitration filings in the Forum—and hence, revenue—for itself.

The lawsuit alleges that, despite telling consumers and the public that it is not affiliated or aligned with the collection industry, the Forum in fact has financial ties to the collection industry.

The lawsuit alleges that, beginning in 2006 and through 2007, Accretive—a family of New York private equity funds—engineered two transactions. In the first transaction, Accretive formed several equity funds under the name “Agora” (meaning “Forum” in Greek), which invested $42 million in the Forum.

In the second transaction, three of the country’s largest debt collection law firms—Mann Bracken of Georgia, Wolpoff & Abramson of Maryland, and Eskanos & Adler of California—merged into one large national law firm called Mann Bracken. Accretive then acquired the majority interest in a debt collection agency called Axiant, which acquired the collections operations of Mann Bracken. Through these transactions, Accretive took control of one of the country’s largest debt collection enterprises and became affiliated with the Forum, the country’s largest consumer collection arbitration company. The lawsuit alleges that Accretive principals remain actively involved with the Forum.

The lawsuit states that, in 2006, the Forum processed just over 214,000 consumer collection arbitration claims, of which 125,000, or nearly 60 percent, were filed by the above law firms.

Swanson said that the Forum was aware of the affiliation problem in 2006 when it negotiated its relationship with Accretive. She pointed to an email from an officer of the Forum to the hedge fund stating: “…we should certainly plan for unwinding any deal in the event shared ownership becomes an acute issue.”

We'll follow this interesting story.

View the complaint here:
http://capwiz.com/nacanet/attachments/MN_Complaint_Against_NAF.pdf

Sources:
MN Attorney General Press Release

http://www.politicsinminnesota.com/2009/jul14/3464/swanson-files-suit-against-national-arbitration-company

Business Week

FDA Eyes Acetaminophen & Evalutes Risks Assocaited With Its Use

The Food and Drug Administration is pondering what to do about the wildly popular painkiller in Tylenol, Excedrin, Nyquil, TheraFlu, Vicodin, Percocet and many other commonly used drugs to treat aches and pains and alleviate fevers.

Since all of these medicines have considerable amounts of acetaminophen in them, when you take them collectively, you're getting pretty close to the maximum daily allowance.

After a two day meeting, the FDA panel is calling for sweeping changes to review acetaminophen's safety since years of public education efforts have failed to alleviate the problem.

The FDA now recommends lowering the maximum amount allowed in over-the-counter medications from 4 grams to a lower, undisclosed amount. It also recommends adding a visible warning label on combination drugs that contain acetaminophen, and decreasing the dosage of Extra Strength Tylenol.

ACETAMINOPHEN DANGERS

Acetaminophen is generally very safe and effective, but in excess doses it can cause liver failure. And because acetaminophen is so common -- more than 24 billion doses were sold last year in the United States -- even rare side effects can add up to a lot of problems.

According to the FDA, from 1998 to 2003, acetaminophen was the main cause of acute liver failure in the United States.

According to a June 2006 report published in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, between 1990 and 1998, each year there were an estimated 56,000 emergency room visits, 26,000 hospitalizations, and 458 deaths related to acetaminophen overdoses.

A 2007 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 1,600 cases of acute liver failure each year in the United States, and acetaminophen is the leading and most common cause of liver failure.

The drug is an ingredient in so many products that people often don't realize they are getting multiple doses that could exceed the safe levels. The panel even went as far as to narrowly recommend pulling Vicodin, Percocet and similar products that combine acetaminophen with powerful narcotics from the market altogether.

Now, while the FDA usually follows the advice of its advisory panels, it doesn't have to, and is unsure at this time what action they will take. The FDA panel was split about pulling drugs like Vicodin & Percocet since these drugs are important to so many millions of Americans.

More than 200 million doses of those drugs that combine acetaminophen with narcotics were sold last year in the United States, making them the most common prescribed class of drugs.

The agency could leave drugs like Vicodin and Percocet on the market with stronger, more prominent warning labels. They could also work out a compromise with the companies that make these products where they voluntarily reduce the dosages and take other steps to make them safer.

In the meantime, officials say consumers should pay careful attention to how much acetaminophen they are getting from various products to reduce the chances of suffering complications.

Sources:

Washington Post

WKBW - Buffalo

Examiner.com

Florida appellate court upholds Florida law against generic drug switching - even if the generic has been FDA approved

Today, a Florida state appellate court ruled that a Florida law banning the substitution of certain drugs must be followed, even if a generic version gets federal approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

A three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal unanimously said it would be unconstitutional for the Florida Legislature to give up its authority over generic swaps to the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The Florida law lists the drugs for which generics cannot be substituted. The appellate court ruled that the Legislature has to make any changes in that list.

The court sided with Abbott Laboratories, which appealed Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Harrell's decision to remove a thyroid drug, including its name-brand Synthroid, from the list.

"It upholds a fundamental right of patients to receive the medications that are prescribed and intended by their doctors," said Abbott spokesman Scott Stoffel in Chicago.

Abbott's drug is prescribed for patients whose thyroid glands don't make enough of a hormone that regulates energy and metabolism. Synthroid also is used to treat or prevent goiters - an enlargement of the thyroid gland - that can result from hormone imbalances, radiation treatment, cancer or surgery.

Harrell had ruled that a generic version made by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. could be substituted because the FDA in 2007 had given it an A rating, which meant it was the therapeutic equivalent of Synthroid.

Harrell based her ruling on another provision of the law that removes a generic from the list if it gets an A rating in the FDA's "Orange Book."

District Judge William A. Van Nortwick wrote that Harrell should not have applied that provision to editions issued after the law was passed in 2001.

It's up to the Legislature to update the list each year based on revised versions of the Orange Book, though it isn't required to follow the FDA's guidance, Van Nortwick wrote.

Source: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/AP/story/1108552.html