A succession of morcellator lawsuits is currently being filed following the series of investigations being carried out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pertaining to allegations that the medical device increased the patient’s risk for leiomyosarcoma, uterine cancer, uterine sarcoma and other non-cancer uterine diseases. Because the investigations are relatively recent (the FDA first issued a warning to hospitals and physicians against the use of power morcellators in April 2014), the number of lawsuits are still in the double digits, but there are strong indications that these may soon change.

There has been a dramatic drop in the use of morcellators in laparoscopic surgery involving the uterus following the FDA caveat, but prior to that power morcellators were considered the better option for gynecologic surgeries. Because it was designed to be minimally invasive, the risk of infection was much smaller and recovery and healing were much faster than standard hysterectomies and myomectomies, to name a few. Recent events have shown that the benefits may not be enough to outweigh the attendant risks of morcellator side effects.

The initial complaints were based on the fact that the manufacturers did not provide adequate warning that power morcellators increased a patient’s risk for developing uterine-related cancers. The manufacturers knew or should have known that these risks existed if they had carried out their duty of care towards patients by performing clinical studies prior to launching the product on the market.

The FDA may have unwittingly encouraged this by failing to require clinical studies from morcellator manufacturers. The FDA does not technically approve each medical device, but merely clears them for sale. With morcellators, the first one to be offered in the market was cleared by the FDA in 1991 using a Premarket Notification or 510(k) review and at that time did not require clinical studies. This provided a precedent for succeeding morcellator products.

Regardless, morcellator lawsuit attorneys will  point out that medical device manufacturers are well aware of their duty to thoroughly test their products for side-effects prior to selling them and warning the public about these risks. The plaintiffs against morcellator manufacturers allege that the defendants failed in these duties.

read more

About two out of 1,000 live births in the US will result in some injury to the brachial plexus nerves, found in the neck where it joins the shoulders, and this is commonly known as Erb’s palsy. In many cases, the injury is temporary, and the infant recovers fully within three months without any intervention. In some cases, however, the injury can be severe enough that it results in permanent damage to the brachial plexus nerves. The infant will have little or no function in the affected limb, and this will be for life.

The loss of mobility can result when the medical practitioner is careless, negligent, or incompetent. Injury to the brachial plexus nerves during birth often occurs when too much pressure is exerted on the head in an effort to pull a baby that may be too big for the pelvic opening, or there is some other issue preventing the normal delivery of the infant.

The website of Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. ® discusses how birth injuries can occur. In particular, Erb’s palsy is most likely to result from an obstetrical mistake. The delivering physician knows or should have known when a normal delivery may not be the best option for a mother who may have issues that increase the risk of injury to her or the unborn child. It is the doctor’s call to choose another delivery option in situations in which there is obvious maternal or fetal distress. Failure to make the correct judgment call in such situations can be construed as medical malpractice.

If your child suffered Erb’s palsy or other birth injury, you have the right to bring your doctor to book. Consult with an Erb’s palsy lawyer in your state to give you the lowdown on filing for a birth injury lawsuit.

read more

A personal injury lawsuit and workers’ compensation claim have the same general aim which is to cover the damages and loss by an individual who sustained injury or harm through no fault of his or her own. However, the main difference between them is that a personal injury lawsuit requires that the defendant was at least partially at fault, while a workers’ compensation claim does not require that fault is assigned at all.

According to the website of LaMarca Law Group, P.C. in Iowa, personal injury results from the negligence or reckless act of a third party, including but not limited to vehicular accidents, medical malpractice, and defective products. The operative word here is negligence. The exact same situation may be eligible for workers’ compensation if it happens in the workplace or in the execution of a prescribed job but there is no need to prove negligence.

Workers’ compensation programs are designed to provide full medical coverage for injured workers for on-the-job accidents. Workers’ compensation programs primarily aim not only to protect employees but employers as well from personal injury lawsuits.

However, there are instances when a worker may be entitled to both workers’ compensation and personal injury awards. This is when the medical coverage under a particular insurer’s plans is inadequate to cover the costs of medical treatment and care of an injured worker; that is, provided the injury resulted at work due to the gross negligence or intentional act of the employer. It all depends on the case and state laws. Each state has its own workers’ compensation and personal injury laws, so one would need a competent lawyer to sort it out.

If you have been seriously injured in an accident or acquired a disease at work, you could be eligible to get compensation. Consult with a workers’ compensation lawyer and personal injury lawyer in your state for information on your legal options.

read more