TMCnet News
Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuit Help: Resource4thePeople Reports New Court Ruling in Favor of Plaintiffs(PR Web Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) San Diego, CA (PRWEB) September 18, 2013 http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivemedicaldevices/medtronic.html Resource4thePeople, in its latest update to consumers following the progress of lawsuits over Medtronic Infuse bone graft allegations, is reporting that a federal judge has issued a ruling that rejected Medtronic's attempts to dismiss the litigation. The ruling by Arizona federal Judge G. Murray Snow involving Medtronic Infuse bone graft lawsuits before him* is the latest in a series of conflicting rulings affecting lawsuits claiming that the bone grafts were marketed for off-label uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Judge Snow ruled against arguments by Medtronic lawyers that a federal law involving lawsuits over FDA-approved devices shields the company from damages in such litigation. "This is the latest ruling involving hundreds of Medtronic Infuse lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs are entitled to seek compensation for serious side effects that they may have suffered as a result of these devices," said Resource4thePeople. "At issue was whether the federal law preempts the rights of these alleged victims to press state tort claims and the judge has ruled that it doesn't, which is a very important ruling." Resource4thePeople announced after the ruling that it will continue to offer free consultations through its nationwide network of attorneys to consumers seeking information about their legal options over allegations of serious health problems as a result of Medtronic Infuse bone grafts. “The fact of the matter is that although contradictory rulings have been made by judges in different jurisdictions these rulings do not affect the rights of consumers to continue to seek information about their legal rights over claims of health problems caused by the Medtronic Infuse bone graft,” said Resource4thePeople. In his ruling Judge Snow wrote that Medtronic actively promoted an unapproved, off-label use of the device: "The majority of the (plaintiff's claims) trace her doctor's off-label use of Infuse back to Medtronic's of-label promotion and are therefore not preempted," according to the court file. Medtronic has since filed a request that the judge reverse his ruling in the latest development involving several court actions involving Medtronic Infuse lawsuits. One group of dozens of Medtronic Infuse lawsuits were recently dismissed** by a Minnesota judge who found that federal law now prevents those plaintiffs from being granted trials over allegations that they suffered serious side effects from the devices. The decision came a few weeks after an Illinois judge denied Medtronic’s efforts to dismiss*** another Infuse lawsuit filed against the company over allegations that the Infuse had been used in unapproved uses and marketed under faulty labeling. As the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported**** on Aug. 7, 2013: “The conflicting decisions further muddle the legal landscape for thousands of potential injury claims across the country. While doctors have the discretion to use Infuse in unapproved ways, experts say Medtronic may not legally promote such alternatives.” Resource4thePeople notes that the newspaper article points out that the Minnesota judge’s decision “does allow those who sued to refile their cases with more specific allegations of fraud that involves promotion of nonapproved uses of Infuse by Medtronic.” The rulings came after the critical findings of an independent academic review of the marketing practices of Medtronic were released from a Yale University study, which was published***** June 18, 2013 in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It was undertaken as an independent study after the medical devices were the subject of a Class 1 Recall by the Food and Drug Administration****** and a highly critical report******* from a U.S. Senate committee that raised concerns about conflicts of interest because of payments the company made to medical researchers and physicians. Studies funded by Medtronic underplayed the benefits of the Infuse bone grafts and failed to report many serious side effects, according to both Yale researchers and Senate investigators. The Yale researchers reported such serious side effects as excessive bone growth, male sterility, inflammations and paralysis, according to the report. The Yale researchers were critical of previous Medtronic-funded research studies which provided endorsements of the safety and effectiveness of the Infuse bone grafts. The Yale researchers said those studies were biased, as did Senate investigators in their report. Resource4thePeople also is announcing that it will continue to provide regular updates for consumers who may have been affected by treatment with Medtronic Infuse bone grafts. Among the claims being reviewed by Resource4thePeople attorneys are allegations of severe back and leg pain, infections, bone deterioration, sterility and cancer, among other problems. In the FDA’s Feb. 16, 2011 Class 1 Recall of Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft pumps and refill kits, the FDA warned that the products "may result in patient harm, serious injury, and/or death due to drug overdose or underdose.” Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Resource4thePeople’s legal team is also investigating claims similar to those contained in a federal lawsuit******* filed in March in the Southern District of Ohio against Medtronic Inc. and an Ohio surgeon who, according to complaint, was a paid Medtronic consultant in addition to his professional duties. The lawsuit includes allegations that 88 patients are claiming that underwent spine surgeries involving bone protein that they did not consent to and have suffered detrimental side effects for which they are seeking compensation. Sources: *Case # 2:13-cv-00512, Ramirez v. Medtronic Inc. et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona **Case # 2013-L-000305, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois ***Lawrence et al vs. Medtronic Case #27-cv-13-1197, Minnesota District Court, Fourth Judicial District ****http://www.startribune.com/business/218743511.html *****http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1696646 ******http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/ucm243634.htm *******http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=b1d112cb-230f-4c2e-ae55-13550074fe86 *******Case # 1:13cv0202 U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio Read the full story at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11128237.htm (c) 2013 PRWEB.COM Newswire |