Johnson & Johnson Exec To Resign

Johnson & Johnson Chief Executive William Weldon will step down from his post in April after a series of recalls called into question the quality of the health care conglomerate's products, from artificial hips to infant Tylenol.  Vice Chairman Alex Gorsky, 51, will become CEO effective April 26, the date of J&J's next board meeting, the company said. Gorsky was also nominated to the board, it added. Weldon, 63, remains the chairman.  The conglomerate, which had more than 250 companies under the J&J umbrella, has been plagued by a series of massive recalls across a wide range of product and medicine lines over the past two years.  The quality control problems at J&J's consumer healthcare unit were deemed so pervasive that last March, U.S. health regulators took over supervision of three J&J manufacturing plants.

Alabama Court Opinion Regarding Motions to Strike

In Ex parte Secretary of Veterans Affairs, No. 1101171 (Ala. Mar. 20, 2012), in support of his summary-judgment motion, the Secretary proffered an affidavit executed by Hiatt to which were attached a number of unsworn, uncertified, and unauthenticated documents.  In his opposing memorandum brief, Smith pointed out why Hiatt’s affidavit and the documents were inadmissible and should not be considered.  Smith was correct.  Yet, Smith never filed a motion to strike the affidavit and documents. 

Bolin wrote a majority opinion to which Woodall, Stuart, Main and Wise concurred.  The majority held that Smith waived his objection to the affidavit and documents when he failed to contemporaneously file a motion to strike. It was not sufficient to argue that the affidavit and documents were inadmissible in Smith's opposing memorandum brief. 

Murdock, with Parker and Shaw concurring, wrote a strong dissent. Murdock pointed out that, having to file a motion to strike along with objecting to the affidavit and documents in the opposing memorandum brief was redundant and placed “form” over “substance.” 

THEREFORE, IN THE FUTURE, IF THE MOVANT PROFFERS INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION, YOU MUST FORMALLY FILE A MOTION TO STRIKE IN ADDITION TO OBJECTING TO THE INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN AN OPPOSING BRIEF. 

DePuy Pinnacle MDL News

More than 900 federal DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuits have been filed and have been included in the multidistrict litigation, or “MDL”, In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2244). On February 1, 2012, a Master Cast List was entered by the court, detailing the case numbers, filing dates, and transferor districts of the DePuy hip replacement lawsuits currently pending before Judge James E. Kinkeade in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. These cases were centralized for MDL on May 23, 2011.

Judge Kinkeade recently appointed plaintiffs’ counsel to serve on various leadership committees. In addition to assigning leadership rules, Judge Kinkeade appointed James M. Stanton as Special Master to help the court with pre-trial, trial and post-trial tasks. Now that DePuy hip replacement lawyers involved in the litigation have been assigned leadership roles and a Special Master named, discovery and motion practice can move forward. The initial discovery process will likely involve the identification and noticing of certain witnesses for depositions.

Growing at a rate of roughly 100 lawsuits per month, the Pinnacle hip litigation has steadily picked up steam since its inception nearly nine months ago. The growth of the DePuy Pinnacle MDL might be due to Johnson & Johnson’s recall of another one of its hip implant products. In August 2010, Johnson & Johnson issued a worldwide recall of its ASR metal-on-metal hip implants due to their excessively high failure rates. The recall was prompted by a study from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, which concluded that 1 out of every 8 patients who received the devices had to undergo revision surgery within five years.

The growth of the Pinnacle MDL may also be attributed to greater consumer awareness of the dangers of metal-on-metal hip replacements, which have been widely reported by the media in recent months. The New York Times in December 2011 described problems with all-metal hips—originally intended to be more durable than implants made from metal and plastic components—as “the most widespread medical implant failure in decades.”

Artificial hips are intended to last at least fifteen years, but some all-metal versions fail as early as a few years after implantation. The high failure rate is widely attributed to the release of metal particles into a patient’s body, which results from friction between the ball and socket portions of metal hips. Some recipients are reporting symptoms of Pinnacle metal toxicity.

Although the metal-on-metal Pinnacle hip replacement devices at issue in the Pinnacle MDL lawsuits were not subject to the hip replacement recall 2010, plaintiffs allege that they share similar design defects to the ASR hip devices.

Pittman, Dutton & Hellums is actively filing cases on behalf of individuals allegedly injured by both types of artificial metal-on-metal hip implants- ASR and Pinnacle models. If you would like a free case evaluation, please contact Booth Samuels toll free at 1-866-515-8880 or at booths@pittmandutton.com.

Reclast and Boniva Drug Lawsuits Added To Fosamax MDL

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued on order on February 3, that all federally filed lawsuits which claim femur fractures by individuals taking both Reclast and Fosamax, or Boniva and Fosamax, or all three drugs, will be consolidated with Fosamax only lawsuits, which were consolidated under Judge Garrett E. Brown in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as part of multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

The Judicial Panel decided that even though they are three separate medications manufactured by three separate entities, there are common questions of fact that justify case consolidation. Specifically, the JMPL order stated, “Although most of the presently centralized actions involve questions of fact arising from allegations that the use of Fosamax or its generic equivalent alone caused femur fractures or similar bone injuries, plaintiffs in at least five of the centralized actions allege that they suffered femur fractures as a result of their use of either Fosamax and Reclast or Fosamax and Boniva.” Fosamax, manufactured by Merck, is the most commonly used bisphosphonate in the United States for the treatment of osteoporosis.    

Fosamax, Reclast, and Boniva all belong in class of drugs known as bisphosphonates, and are designed to prevent bone loss that can occur during menopause as osteoporosis. On occasion, Fosamax was prescribed for a condition known as osteopenia, a term used to describe possible early onset of osteoporosis (see my blog from August 2011 regarding “osteopenia”). However, the FDA imposed new warnings regarding bisphosphonates and the link between long-term use and an increased risk of atypical femur fractures. The warning says that consumers should seek medical attention as soon as they experience groin or thigh pain while taking the drugs, which can sometimes signal a forthcoming thigh bone fracture, which often occurs with little to no trauma. Some patients say that their bone fractures occurred while doing limited physical activity, such as walking down the stairs or even the sidewalk.

Reclast is manufactured by Novartis as a once-a-year injectable medication. Boniva is manufactured by Roche as a once-a-month oral medication, and Fosamax is a weekly, daily, or monthly oral tablet or solution manufactured by Merck.

Pittman, Dutton & Hellums is currently investigating claims for those people who have taken bisphosphonates, including Fosamax, and have been injured. If you would like a free case evaluation, please contact Booth Samuels at toll free 1-866-515-8880 or booths@pittmandutton.com.