Jury Finds For J&J DePuy In First Pinnacle Bellwether Case

Yesterday, a nine member panel found for the defendant Johnson & Johnson and their subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics in the first MDL bellwether case to go to trial over the Pinnacle Metal-On-Metal hip replacement device. The jury deliberated for a little more than two days. The trial lasted eight weeks.

In what is a huge blow to the nearly 6,000 other claimants in the MDL, the jury found that the devices were safe when used and implanted properly. Lawyers for the defendants basically blamed the surgeons who implanted the plaintiff’s devices for not properly positioning them when implanted.

The plaintiff in the trial claimed that the metal-on-metal wear from the device resulted in exposure to extremely high levels of cobalt and chromium which affected poisoned her blood and caused soft tissue damage. She ultimately had to have bi-lateral hip surgeries to remove to the devices.

The Pinnacle device is different than DePuy’s ASR Metal-On-Metal hips in several facets, although they appear to be extremely similar. The ASR was recalled by J&J, whereas J&J just stopped selling the metal-on-metal version of the Pinnacle hip in August 2013 after the FDA said it would require device makers to submit new versions of the artificial hips for pre-market approval. J&J settled the ASR MDL last year for an estimated $4 Billion.

Of course, this is just the first chapter in what will most likely be a long and drawn out fight. J&J and DePuy face several other Pinnacle trials in different jurisdictions that are set soon, and there were will most likely be several other bellwether trials coming out of the MDL. 

J&J Recall 13,500 Bottles of Xarelto

Johnson & Johnson's Janssen unit is recalling approximately 13,500 bottles of its top-selling anticoagulant Xarelto because of microbial contamination discovered in a sample.

According to a recall notice in an FDA Enforcement Report, the drug manufacturer said that it confirmed that a sales sample of the drug was contaminated after a customer complaint, and so initiated a nationwide, voluntary recall. The company reported that the product came from a plant in Puerto Rico. The plant was among four on the island that J&J slated two years ago for $225 million in upgrades.

To view the notice, click on the link below:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/enforcement/enforce_rpt-Product-Tabs.cfm?action=select&recall_number=D-0006-2015&w=10152014&lang=eng

Xarelto came to market in the U.S. three years ago behind Boehringer Ingelheim's Pradaxa, but which has since eclipsed it in sales. Like Pradaxa, Xarelto has come under scrutiny based on accusations that the drug causes bleed outs and deaths. Lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer across the country, and a motion has been filed to consolidate cases into an MDL.

Pittman, Dutton & Hellums, P.C., is currently investigating Xarelto cases. If you or a loved one were prescribed Xarelto and suffered an irreversible internal bleeding that lead to hospitalization and/or death, contact Booth Samuels at toll free 1-866-515-8880 or by email at booths@pittmanudutton.com.

Missouri Supreme Court Rejects Punitive Damage Limit and Other Tort Reform News

Last month, the Missouri Supreme Court threw out the state legislature’s limits on punitive damages, saying they don’t apply to a $1 million verdict a jury awarded to Lillian Lewellen. Lewellen received the judgment in 2012 after she was defrauded by a car dealer.

After a jury ordered the defendant to pay Lewellen $1 million in punitive damages, a judge cut the judgment in half, citing a state law that capped some punitive damage awards at $500,000.

The Supreme Court restored the judgment because Lewellen had filed her claim as a common law fraud, which has existed in Missouri since the first state constitution was written. Because of that, the legislature cannot limit a jury’s ability to set punitive damage amounts, the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

Punitive damage caps remain in place for causes of action created by the Missouri legislature, such as human rights cases and awards for some deceptive merchandising practices.

In other tort reform news, a story by The Los Angeles Times, reported on a new study led by Michael B. Rothberg of the Cleveland Clinic and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, aimed to measure how much defensive medicine there is, and how much it costs.

The researchers' conclusion is that defensive medicine accounts for about 2.9% of healthcare spending. In other words, out of the estimated $2.7-trillion U.S. healthcare bill, defensive medicine accounts for $78 billion.

The minimal impact of defensive medicine on healthcare costs demonstrates the injustice of the stringent limits on malpractice lawsuits advocated by doctors and insurance companies. 

"Pain-and-suffering" or “mental anguish” damage caps and other stratagems to discourage malpractice lawsuits benefit mostly insurers. Their impact falls disproportionately on women and families with infants, because their economic damages, which remain subject to jury awards, are hard to estimate and typically underestimated.

As for "frivolous lawsuits," defined as cases that should never have been brought at all, they are a lot rarer than most tort reform advocates admit. Studies have documented that the vast majority of them don't yield a payment to the plaintiff. The converse is a bigger problem -- genuinely injured patients who cannot get redress because the courthouse doors have been shut to them. The victims there are often lower-income or unemployed patients.