Missouri Injury Lawyer Blog

Lawsuits against Davol, the maker of the Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch, was expanded to include other hernia patches made by the company.

On Jan. 10, U.S. District Court Judge Mary M. Lisi ruled that a lawsuit alleging the Davol-made Composix EX Mesh Patch was defective could proceed as part of the Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch multi-district litigation pending in Rhode Island. In her ruling, Lisi noted that both hernia patches involved the interplay of three elements: the polypropylene mesh, an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene layer, and a memory recoil ring.

The Davol hernia patches made news in 2005 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recalled the Kugel Mesh Patch after it was discovered that the memory coil can break, leading to serious injuries such as bowel perforations. The FDA subsequently expanded the recall to include certain Bard, Composix and Kugel patches.

The FDA also warned patients who had the device implanted to seek immediate medical attention if they experienced unexplained or persistent abdominal pain, fever or tenderness at the implant site.

The lawyers of The Lowe Law Firm are experienced in helping people injured by a dangerous medical device. We will seek compensation for past and future medical expenses, past and future wages, pain and suffering, disability and other damages. We also represent family members in wrongful death cases.

We offer a free initial consultation for victims of dangerous medications. If you cannot make it to our office, we will come to you at the hospital or your home.

Contact the lawyers at The Lowe Law Firm today by calling 877-678-3400.

A study conducted by the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program confirms that the birth control patch Ortho Evra Contraceptive Transdermal (Skin) Patch increases the risk of developing serious blood clots.

Ortho Evra is a birth conrtrol patch manufactured by Johnson and Johnson, and has been linked to blood clots known as deep vein thrombosis or DVT's, as well as pulmonary embolisms which if untreated can be fatal. On Jan. 18, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved changes to the drug’s label to include the results of the study.

Ortho Evra releases an estrogen hormone, ethinyl estradiol, and a progrestin hormone, norelgestromin, into the bloodstream through the skin. Because the body processes the hormones through the skin different than the hormones from birth control pills, women are exposed to about 60 percent more estrogen.

An earlier study conducted by i3 Ingenix, showed that women who use the patch were twice as likely to develop serious blood clots, also known as venous thromboembolisms (VTE), as women who take oral contraceptives. If the VTE travels to the lungs and triggers a pulmonary embolism, it can kill. The BCDSP study, which looked at women aged 15 to 44, supported the i3 Ingenix findings.

Ortho Evra is made by Ortho McNeil Pharmaceuticals, a Johnson and Johnson division. According to Bloomberg News, the company has been sued by more than 1,500 women who alleged they suffered strokes or blood clots in their lungs or legs after using the patch. Last October, Bloomberg News reported that the company agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a suit filed by the family of a 14-year-old girl who died after she developed two blood clots in her lungs.

There’s more. Last fall, a New Jersey judge also made public a letter from a former Johnson & Johnson executive who alleged that the company improperly downplayed the risks associated with the Ortho Evra patch. The author of the letter said that he had investigated an “unusually high number” of blood clots and indicated that more than 20 deaths had been linked to the patch, according to an article in Bloomberg News.

A prescription drug that raises the risk of strokes and deadly blood clots is disturbing. The suggestion that the company misrepresented the risks of the patch to the public of a potentially fatal illness under most circumstance would be unbelievable. But with the examples of Vioxx, Bextra, Fen Phen, Baycol, Reszulin, Zyprexa and many more, drug companies ignoring or hiding risks in order to keep a block buster drug on the market to keep making profits instead of withdrawing the drug to keep patients safe appears to be the norm and not the exception. As a lawyer who practices in the area of pharmaceutical liability, I don't find the fact that a drug company hid the fact that healthy young women were dying from strokes and blood clots after using the Ortho Evra patch surprising. If you took Ortho Evra and had a stroke or pulmonary embolism and would like more information regarding whether you have a case against Johnson and Johnson, please contact Jeffrey J. Lowe at 877-678-3400.

After a two-year wait, the makers of the cholesterol drug Vytorin finally released the results of a study that showed the drug is no better than the generic for reducing plaque buildup in the carotid arteries. In fact, Vytorin did slightly worse. And Vytorin is ten times more expensive than the generic alternative.

Vytorin combines the cholesterol drug Zetia and generic statin drugs. It is jointly marketed by Merck and Schering-Plough. The results were released from a study known as the ENHANCE trial which ended nearly two years ago.

In an interview with WebMD, Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a cardiologist, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and past president of the American College of Cardiology, called the findings a “stunning reversal for Zetia and Vytorin.”

Nissen added:

“Zetia works only by blocking the absorption of cholesterol, but it has not been shown to produce any health benefits. I have been skeptical of these drugs from the beginning because I wasn’t sure that Zetia’s mechanisms of cholesterol lowering would produce the same benefits we see with statins.”

This amounted to the second piece of bad news for Vytorin. A congressional committee recently launched an investigation into the reasons behind the delay in releasing the study results.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich, the leaders of the investigation for the Committee on Energy and Commerce subcommittee, issued a joint statement after the study results were released.

Dingell said:

“Today’s announcement that the ENHANCE study failed to find any positive benefit from the addition of Zetia to a common, inexpensive, generic therapy raises concerns that attempts were made to mask the minimal value of this new drug. Additionally, Merck and Schering-Plough’s delay in releasing study results, as well as their attempt to manipulate the data is, quite frankly, suspicious.”

Stupak added:

“In light of today’s results, which were released nearly two years after the ENHANCE trial ended, it is easy to conclude that Merck and Schering-Plough intentionally sought to delay the release of this data.”

The congressmen vowed to press on with the investigation.

This study and the investigation highlight on ongoing problem in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug companies understand that once the patent on a prescription drug expires profits drop. To boost income and fight off generic competition, drug companies may combine the effective generic drug with a new prescription drug and market the combination as more effective than the stand-alone generic alternative. As the study in Vytorin shows, those claims don’t always hold up.

An Illinois State Trooper was involved in a fatal auto accident on Illinois Interstate 64. Why the trooper racing to an accident when emergency vehicles were already leaving the scene?

That’s one of the questions being asked as part of a probe into the double-fatal crash on Nov. 23 in which a speeding patrol car crossed a median on Interstate 64 in Illinois and collided head-on with another car containing two sisters, Jessica Uhl, 18 and Kelli, 13. Both sisters died in the crash.

According to an article in the Belleville News-Democrat written by Mike Fitszgerald, Illinois State Police Trooper Matt Mitchell was more than 15 miles away from an accident in which a 16-year-old was briefly trapped in a flipped truck on Illinois 4. The teen was able to get out of the truck.

Two local police squad cars, two ambulances and a fire truck were on the scene six minutes before Mitchell was spotted in Fairview Heights racing to the scene. Eyewitnesses estimated that Mitchell was driving more than 100 mph as he attempted to reach the accident. The teen had already been loaded into the ambulance, which was on its way to a Belleville Hospital, when the trooper lost control of his vehicle and hit the sisters.

So far, the state police have refused to release information to the Belleville News-Democrat regarding the exact time Mitchell received the call for assistance and his exact location.

At high rates of speed, cars are difficult to control and the impact is likely to cause serious injury or even death. Even though the speeding car in this case was an emergency vehicle, it does not make it any less lethal.

This week, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District upheld an $8 million punitive damages award against State Farm, calling the insurance company’s conduct “clearly reprehensible.”

The Jan. 8 ruling involves conduct that stretches back ten years. In 1997, Jennie Hampton called State Farm and reported that her car had been stolen. It was later found abandoned and burned in a Kansas field.

State Farm denied Hampton’s insurance claim. The insurer alleged that Hampton had provided false information when she claimed the engine was in “excellent” condition. According to State Farm, the engine had failed. The insurer also alleged that Marvin Vail, a tow truck driver and the brother of Hampton’s boyfriend, towed the car to the field. State Farm claimed that Hampton and Vail then burned the car to collect insurance money.

State Farm’s investigator contacted the National Insurance Crime Bureau about Hampton’s claim. NICB then contacted Kansas prosecutors. Hampton, Vail, and her boyfriend were charged with insurance fraud and conspiracy to commit insurance fraud. The criminal case against Hampton and Vail went to trial. A jury cleared them of any wrongdoing.

Hampton and Vail filed a breach of contract and malicious prosecution case in Jackson County. It went to trial in 2005. A jury awarded Hampton $10,300 on her breach of contract claim. Hampton and Vail were each awarded $400,000 and legal fees on the malicious prosecution claim. In awarding punitive damages of $4 million to each plaintiff, the trial court noted:

• State Farm’s lawyer lied when he claimed a plaster cast of tire tracks from a tow truck existed;
• State Farm’s lawyer told Hampton’s attorney that criminal charges could be brought and she better be careful;
• State Farm withheld evidence from NICB and the prosecutor that would have supported Hampton’s claim;
• State Farm’s lawyer threatened a witness with perjury if he changed his story;
• State Farm’s mechanical expert did not fully examine the car’s engine before rendering an opinion on the engine’s condition;
• State Farm prepared the mechanical expert to testify at the criminal trial without consulting the prosecutor;
• State Farm failed to investigate the tow truck’s log records and did not interview an independent witness who had seen Hampton driving the car before the theft.

State Farm appealed on several grounds. On Tuesday, the appellate court rejected State Farm’s arguments, concluding that the jury instructions were proper, there was substantial evidence that supported the malicious prosecution and punitive damages award, and that the award was not excessive.

In the opinion, Judge Victor C. Howard wrote:

“In this case, it is clear that the Plaintiffs were financially vulnerable, especially considered in relation to State Farm. State Farm’s misconduct, including relying on a questionable expert, excluding exculpatory evidence, and making representations about nonexistent plaster cases, is clearly reprehensible.”

State Farm went to great lengths to avoid paying Hampton’s claim. And when she fought back, the company resorted to bully tactics and criminal prosecution. When making a insurance claim, especially one involving serious injuries, some companies don’t fight fair. A plaintiff’s lawyer is an important ally who will protect your interests.

The diabetes drugs Avandia and Actos significantly increase the odds of suffering a heart attack, congestive heart failure and death for older diabetic patients according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Both drugs, known as thiazolidinediones, or TZDs, increase the body’s sensitivity to insulin. Avandia is made by GlaxoSmithKline. Takeda Pharmaceutical North American Inc. is the maker of Actos. Both drugs carry the Food and Drug Administration’s black box warning about heart failure. This past summer, Avandia made headlines after an FDA panel launched an inquiry into the drug’s safety.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the December study found that patients over 65 who took TZDs had a 60 percent increased risk of heart failure compared with patients prescribed oral hypoglycemic drugs. The patients treated with TZDs had a 40 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 29 percent increased risk of dying.

In a statement, the study’s leader, the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Services in Toronto, said the risks were predominantly among those taking Avandia.

Even though demand for Avandia dropped after a spate of studies linked it to increased heart attacks and death, its sales figures were still staggering. Avandia recorded over $3 billion in worldwide sales last year. Actos raked in more than $2 billion, the Chicago Tribune reports.

But the sales represent more than profits. They represent people with diabetes who were looking for a way to control their disease and enhance their quality of life. Unfortunately, this new study confirms that these new diabetes drugs that diabetics had hoped would help may them may end up costing them their lives.

As a medical malpractice lawyer who practices in Missouri, Illinois as well as other states, I know that medical malpractice cases are difficult and expensive cases to handle. Medical malpractice cases are also more difficult to win in comparison to a product liability case because in a product liability case you can generally present evidence that the corporation knew of the risk of injury, could make the product sager but made the conscious decision to put profits over safety. In a medical malpractice case you have a doctor who is in a caring profession, who did not mean to injure their patient but just made a mistake which resulted in one of their patients being injured.

Over the last several years insurance companies and large corporations have spent millions of dollars convincing the public that a medical malpractice crises exists. The effect of this well organized disinformation campaign has made it more difficult for plaintiffs to win medical malpractice cases. These campaigns have influenced some state legislatures to limit the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover in a medical malpractice for non-economic damages which are commonly known as pain and suffering.

These laws have dramatic effects, for example in California the cap is $250,000 and in Missouri it is $350,000. Furthermore, in both states the cap is not indexed to keep pace with inflation. What these laws do is unfairly shift the burden of the medical providers negligence from the hospital or doctor who made the error and who can insure against the loss to the individual whose life has been dramatically changed by the medical providers negligence.

Who can legitimately argue that if you are paralyzed or suffer a permanent disability from a medical providers negligence that $350,000 is adequate compensation. The public needs to be aware of the effect of these laws and express their outrage at this unfair risk shifting from medical providers who are able to protect themselves by obtaining insurance, to patients who maybe be burdened with permanent disabilities and inadequate compensation to help ease their suffering and without any means to protect themselves. These laws need to be changed by the legislatures and they need to be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, a judge in Chicago Illinois recently held that Illinois "medical tort reform law" which included a cap on non-economic damages was unconstitutional. The defendant in that case has appealed the judges decision to the Illinois Court of Appeals and a final decision will not be made on this issue for months.

People analyze this issue objectively and not fall for the propaganda put out by insurance companies and the medical community. As a medical malpractice lawyer I will do my part by picking the best case I can to challenge these laws. The public can do its part by voting for candidates who represent the people of their district or state and not corporations and insurance companies.

During the rush hour commute, highway accidents are common. But what does a driver do when there’s no shoulder? That’s the question St. Louis drivers are asking now that many are using Interstate 44 as an alternate route during the Highway 40 closure.

To accommodate increased demand during the Highway 40 shutdown, an additional lane was added to Interstate 44 by narrowing the existing lanes and shrinking the shoulder.

In an interview with KMOV-4, the Missouri Highway Patrol recommended that motorists who aren’t hurt in an accident should pull off the roadway. Special accident investigation areas located near Interstate 44 and Highway 270 have been set up by the city of Town and Country.

In addition, the Missouri Department of Transportation has added pavement pads for motorists who’ve been involved in a non-injury accident.

The highway closing also means more tractor trailers will be turning to Highway 44. In another segment on KMOV-4, truck drivers warned motorists to either pass the trucks or stay behind them to avoid accidents.

The tight squeeze means not only that the potential for truck-car collisions rises but also that there will be fewer safe places for motorists to go once an accident occurs.

Illinois' medical malpractice damage caps were declared unconstitutional by a Cook County Circuit Judge on November 13, 2007. On December 13, 2007 the hospital and doctor filed a notice of appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court in an effort have the decision overturned.

In 2005, the Illinois legislature passed Public Act 94-677 which capped non-economic damages, also known as pain and suffering awards, at $500,000 for doctors and $1 million for hospitals. The new law came on the heels of a scare campaign waged by insurance companies, hospitals and doctors. That campaign blamed lawsuits for skyrocketing insurance rates and claimed doctors were leaving the state as a result.

What they didn’t tell the public was that the insurance industry was responsible for the high rates and that insurance reform was needed. Unfortunately, the politicians passed a measure that protected hospitals and doctors and insurance companies at the expense of patients.

Abigaile Lebron, an infant, was one such patient. It is alleged that Abigaile’s delivery was botched, leaving her with permanent and severe brain damage. In 2006, a medical malpractice suit was filed against Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, Dr. Robert Levi-D’Ancona and Florence Martinez, a nurse.

Abigaile’s lawyers challenged the constitutionality of the medical malpractice caps, arguing that the law stripped away a patient’s right to seek redress in court. Cook County Circuit Judge Joan Larsen agreed. On Nov. 13, she ruled that the legislature cannot interfere with the right of judges and juries to determine fair damages. The caps, Larsen concluded, violate the “separation of powers” clause in the Illinois Constitution.

In the ruling, Larsen relied on two Illinois Supreme Court decisions, Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (1997) and Wright v. Central DuPage Hospital Association, 63 Ill.2d 313 (1976), ran afoul of the state constitution.

After Judge Larsen’s ruling, the defendants vowed to take their challenge to the Illinois Supreme Court. On Dec. 12, they made good on that promise.

I think the earliest will see a ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court will be by the end of August. This case will be closely watched. Perhaps by that time, the constitutionality of Missouri’s $350,000 medical malpractice cap will also have been challenged, which is much more draconian than the Illinois cap.

In a personal injury case pending in Missouri, Allstate Insurance Co. is racking up $25,000-a-day in court fines, because it refuses to comply with a judge’s order to hand over documents, the Kansas City Star reports.

At the center of the controversy are papers prepared by consultant McKinsey & Co in the 1990s. Dubbed the McKinsey documents, they were used by the insurance company to formulate its policies, methods and claims procedures. Policyholders and the lawyers who represent them believe the documents show how the company amassed large profits at the expense of its own policyholders.

One of those policyholders sued Allstate for bad faith in Jackson County Circuit Court. He alleged that Allstate refused to pay a claim arising out of a car wreck more than seven years ago. A Jackson County Judge ordered the insurance company to produce the documents to the plaintiff, making them open records for public view. Flouting the judge’s order, Allstate has refused to comply. In mid-September, the judge fined Allstate $25,000 each day. That fine is now about $2.5 million. The insurance company’s San Diego lawyer told the judge the company would not provide the documents without a protective order sealing them off from the company.

This case is a perfect example of shortsighted policies motivated by greed. If Allstate simply paid its policyholders as they promised, there would be no need for the strategies and procedures outlined in the McKinsey documents. If Allstate had simply paid this policyholder’s claim after the accident, there would have been no need for the lawsuit and legal expenses. If Allstate had not flouted the judge’s order, it would not be facing multi-million fines. Unfortunately, the company shows no sign of abandoning its ill-advised strategies anytime soon.