Medical malpractice lawyers have recently learned that Smith & Nephew PLC has announced that it will withdraw a metal liner used for its R3 Acetabular System hip replacements from the market. The company said that it is “not satisfied with the clinical results” of the liner because some patients have required an additional surgery to have the liner removed. Smith & Nephew introduced the hip replacement liner in 2009. Since that time, about 7,700 patients have had them implanted. According to Smith & Nephew, patients who have not experienced problems do not need to have the liner removed. The majority of the R3 Acetabular System hip replacement liners were used in stemmed total hip replacements.
Medical Malpractice Lawyers Express Concern Regarding Increasing Hip Replacement Device Recalls
Complaints about failed hip replacement devices have continued to indicate that patients are experiencing serious problems with certain types of artificial hips. In the past two years, the Food and Drug Administration has received more than thousands of reports about popular devices known as metal-on-metal hips, including the A.S.R. or Articular Surface Replacement manufactured by the DePuy division of Johnson & Johnson, the Zimmer Durom Cup, and implants made by Stryker Orthopedics. Smith & Nephew now joins this list with their latest recall.
In many cases, the all-metal devices were sold without testing in patients or without a requirement that producers track their performance. However, complaints from patients indicate many of them had the all-metal hip devices removed because they failed after only a few years. Typically, replacement hips last 15 years or more.
Metal-on-metal hip replacements can cause devastating injuries as many patients have suffered injuries as a result of tiny particles of cobalt and chromium that the metal devices shed as they wear. Common injuries are damaged muscles and other soft tissue, severe inflammation or the need for additional surgery, also called a revision.
Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Philadelphia and New Jersey
The Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyers at Messa & Associates are experienced at handling cases involving medical malpractice cases resulting from medical errors and defective medical devices. Our extremely skilled team of medical malpractice lawyers and medical experts is dedicated to ensuring you receive proper compensation for your personal injuries. If you or a loved one has suffered personal injuries as a result of a medical error, defective medical device or any other type of negligent care received by a medical provider, contact the medical malpractice lawyers of Messa & Associates for a free consultation. Call toll free at 1-877-MessaLaw, or submit a free online inquiry.
The team of med students and medical professionals aimed to discover how honest doctors believe they should be, and in turn actually are, with their patients. The survey was carried out in 2009 and involved almost 1,900 practicing doctors from the United States.
Unknown to Garcia, a resident physician performed the procedure and dilated Garcia’s cervix and the uterus was then perforated. Dr. Gove did not properly supervise the resident. When ring forceps were inserted through the perforated uterus in order to remove the fetal remains, he grabbed a piece of bowel that snapped back. As a result of the mistake Garcia’s rectum and bowel were torn. Garcia then required an 
While at the hospital awaiting his transplant, an unrelated instance of medical negligence led to serious medical issues for Dr. Parsons. Parsons was accidentally given a dose of insulin from a nurse who failed to read a note that specifically stated that no insulin be administered. Medical malpractice attorneys believe that the insulin led Parsons into a diabetic coma and eventually caused his death only three weeks later. That’s when medical malpractice attorneys took on the case of Parson’s widow and family to seek justice for the alleged malpractice. The case never reached trial, which allowed the parties to avoid a lengthy litigation process. The two parties agreed to settle for a sum of approximately $5 million earlier this month. It appears that nurses had previously complained to higher-ups that the healthcare providers, on the floor Parsons was located, were overworked and given far too many patients.
First, Damian Saul, 43, suffered a massive stroke while he waited for hours to see a physician at a city hospital. Upon his arrival, Saul informed a nurse that he was having trouble with his sight in one eye. This should have been recognized by the nurse as an initial sign of a stroke. The ensuing stroke left him almost completely paralyzed and he was unable to speak clearly. His medical malpractice attorneys reached a settlement of $5.5 million. His medical malpractice attorneyswere quoted as saying,
Jeffers’ family agreed to a settlement with Methodist Hospital and emergency room workers in the amount of $10 million. Medical malpractice attorneys believe that $9 million will come from the hospital while the remainder will be paid by Emergency Physicians Medical Group of Sacramento, resulting in one of the largest awards in California history. Some of the money will go towards current expenses and the remainder will be given to young Malyia, beginning in 2026 on her 18th birthday, at $16,000 per month. Although California has a damage cap in place at a quarter of a million dollars, this only limits damages related to “pain and suffering”. Medical malpractice attorneys believe that this settlement was properly designed to avoid the cap and attribute the amounts of money to different types of damages. Hopefully, this amount of money will help the young girl adapt to her new life after this devastating case of malpractice and will allow her to lead a normal life.
Medical malpractice attorneys have traditionally believed that the use of electronic medical records would actually decrease the number of medical mistakes and other prescription errors. With the increase in technology, medical malpractice attorneys thought that doctors and nurses would be better equipped to avoid preventable mistakes and injuries and reduce the potential for civil lawsuits. It is easy to see why people thought that better technology would help healthcare providers avoid unnecessary medical malpractice. Doctors, who are notorious for poor handwriting, would not have the same problems communicating data to others in patient charts, the equipment could monitor drug prescriptions to avoid dangerous mixtures, and hospital workers could be alerted easily of particular patient conditions without the hassle of digging through charts. However, many studies are now showing that the expected benefits of the new healthcare technology are not coming to fruition as fast as expected, if at all. The Institute of Medicine has also highlighted numerous dangers that could lead to malpractice and cause patients severe injuries. The report stated “although the magnitude of the risk associated with health IT is not known, some examples illustrate the concerns. . . Dosing errors, failure to detect life-threatening illnesses, and delaying treatment due to poor human-computer interactions or loss of data have led to serious injury and death.”
Sandy Pasch originally wrote the bill in an attempt to disallow courts to consider healthcare provider’s apologies, but since the bill became more expanded, she elected to vote against the bill. Pasch, a nurse, was quoted as saying,