Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 19, 13 at 11:18

"Johnson & Johnson has tentatively agreed to a settlement that could reach up to $4 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits filed by patients injured by a flawed all-metal replacement hip, said two lawyers briefed on the plan.

The tentative plan, which must win court approval, represents one of the largest payouts for product liability claims involving a medical device.

A spokeswoman for the company's DePuy Orthopaedics unit declined to comment on the possibility of a settlement. An announcement about the plan is expected in the coming days, the lawyers said.

The agreement will include those patients who have already been forced to have the device, known as the Articular Surface Replacement, or A.S.R., removed and replaced with another artificial hip, said the lawyers who spoke about the agreement only on the condition of anonymity.

Under the deal, each patient would receive about $350,000 on average in compensation, though that figure will vary depending on factors like a patient's age and medical condition.

-snip-

The A.S.R. hip was sold by DePuy until mid-2010, when the company recalled it amid sharply rising early failure rates. The device, which had a metal ball and a metal cup, sheds metallic debris as it wears, generating particles that have damaged tissue in some patients or caused crippling injuries.

DePuy officials have long insisted that they acted appropriately in recalling the device when they did. However, internal company documents disclosed during the trial of a patient lawsuit this year showed that DePuy officials were long aware that the hip had a flawed design and was failing prematurely at a high rate.

Many artificial hips last 15 years or more before they wear out and need to be replaced. But by 2008, data from orthopedic databases outside the United States also showed that the A.S.R. was failing at high rates in patients after just a few years.

Internal DePuy projections estimate that it will fail in 40 percent of those patients in five years, a rate eight times higher than for many other hip devices.

-snip-

Problems with the design first came to light in Australia and England just a few years after its marketing began. But DePuy officials insisted for years to surgeons who complained about that device that patient problems reflected their surgical technique rather than the implant's design.

Last year, The New York Times reported that DePuy executives decided in 2009 to phase out the A.S.R. and sell existing inventories weeks after the Food and Drug Administration asked the company for more safety data about the implant.

The agency also told the company at that time that it was rejecting its efforts to sell the resurfacing version of the device in the United States because of concerns about "high concentration of metal ions" in the blood of patients who received it.

DePuy never disclosed the F.D.A. ruling to regulators in other countries, where it was still marketing the resurfacing version of the implant.

The head of DePuy's orthopedic unit, Andrew Ekdahl, oversaw the introduction of the hip and was warned by a company consultant in 2008 that the implant appeared to have a design flaw, according to internal DePuy documents disclosed during a trial earlier this year.

When DePuy recalled the hip in 2010, it announced a program in which it offered to pay the medical costs of a replacement procedure.

All-metal replacement hips like the A.S.R. were once highly popular with orthopedic surgeons who believed the devices would last longer than traditional replacement devices made of plastic and metal. But the metal devices are rarely used anymore because of their high early failure rates.

While the settlement, if approved, would resolve much of the litigation against DePuy involving that device, it continues to face thousands of lawsuits involving another all-metal hip that it no longer sells called the Pinnacle."

end quote

So, they're selling something they know is faulty, that poisons people, that falls apart in 2 years instead of 15, and blame the doctors, not the junk they're selling.

So, with the Republican Health Care Plan, we'll limit lawsuits like this and save money.

Here is a link that might be useful: link to podcast


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

We do need to stop frivolous lawsuits, not those with merit.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

I watched a doc film about how industry PR groups have done an impressive job getting ordinary folks to think that most lawsuits are frivolous. Also they have made considerable progress in paying off their tools at State level in passing laws to limit or eliminate the ability to get redress in civil court.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Colorado has long had a $350,000 limit on punitive damages in malpractice medical suits. Like if they take out the wrong kidney because the surgeon had a hangover. It has made no difference in malpractice insurance rates, it has made no difference in the number of malpractice suits in general, and it has made no difference in the cost of insurance or the cost of health care.

Who was it on the forum a few years ago who was talking about the medical law suit business down in Florida - attorneys would be suing the doctors for $30,000 - $40,000 because of something or another, and their insurance would just pay up because it was cheaper than litigating.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 19, 13 at 12:29

On average, 97 percent of medical negligence claims have merit. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health examined over 1,400 closed medical negligence claims and found that 97 percent were meritorious. Of those 1,400 claims, 80 percent involved death or serious injury. The study concluded that “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”

.....as overblown as the myth of welfare/voter fraud but it does not stop those who want to believe it from repeating the lies and exaggerations.

Here is a link that might be useful: Myth


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

And those 97% of people with meritorious lawsuits certainly deserve to be compensated for loss of quality of life that was/is no fault of their own.

Pain and suffering are very real things, not to mention the possible cost of future medical needs that are a result of negligence or faulty medical equipment.

So, 3% of lawsuits have no merit...

Where have we heard this kind of myth regarding fraud before? Hmm... let me think...


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

So, 3% of lawsuits have no merit

*

Where is that proven?

I thought you all were discussing medical negligence claims.

That does not mean that only 3% of all lawsuits have no merit.

Probably 30-40% of lawsuits in which I was involved in working one side or the other had no merit.

Personal injury lawsuits are notorious for not having merit because it is so easy to fake a back or neck injury. Most every adult has some type of degeneration or problems with their spine, and it's easy to say you're in pain, get pain pills, shut down working and wait for someone else to pay the bills.

Lawyers that rank low in their classes make money representing these people.

Why do you think there are chiropractors and nebulous back injuries?


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

At the link is study on civil lawsuits, frivolous or not - as the chart indicates, over half are from car accidents.

Only 19% of the medical malpractice suits win in court.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

A family member has the defective artificial hip. She'll be going in for the second correcting operation after the holidays.

Thank you, DePuy Orthopaedics, for making her life miserable.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Who gets to decide a lawsuit is frivolous?

On what basis does one make a judgement that 30 % plus of lawsuits are frivolous........30 % of what number? The small number they may have been involved in?

Is an official evaluation done after the case or is the judgment simply the opinion of a one?

Having said all that we don''t sue in Canada like you do in the States The grounds for bringing a suit are quite stringent and when we do sue the settlements are much more modest.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Having said all that we don''t sue in Canada like you do in the States The grounds for bringing a suit are quite stringent and when we do sue the settlements are much more modest.

*

That's why you don't know so much about frivolous lawsuits.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

I made no assertion that I had any knowledge of what defines a frivolous lawsuit....you did.

I repeat...

"Who gets to decide a lawsuit is frivolous?

On what basis does one make a judgement that 30 % plus of lawsuits are frivolous........30 % of what number? The small number they may have been involved in?

Is an official evaluation done after the case or is the judgment simply the opinion of a one? "


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

•Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 19, 13 at 12:2

The study concluded that “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”

.....as overblown as the myth of welfare/voter fraud but it does not stop those who want to believe it from repeating the lies and exaggerations."

I would have to guess, most negligence suits probably have merit. I would separate the back injury cases out and call them unprovable.

As far as the overblown welfare fraud, you're wrong about that. Unless there is no fraud anywhere except Chicago. I have seen it all myself.

You are wrong about voter fraud being overblown too. Told ya'll about my experience in the voting booth, didn't I?

And who is that owns a company that makes voting machines? Who was that now. Come on, you remember.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 8:53

So agree. You know, we haven't had much electronic voting fraud revealed yet, but since the out-in-the-open efforts to disenfranchise voters backfired so badly in 2012 and at best will have mixed results in 2014, those who seek to overset government of the people, etc., have to be working on this. Big time.

As for tort reform, no need to fuss over who has the right figures. The test of the intentions behind proposed tort reform laws is very simple:

Whether a proposal would limit the ancient right to seek just redress of grievances of injured people. Or if it would impose limitations that specifically targeted predatory attorneys and claimants who abuse the judicial process for profit.

Big special interests are behind almost all tort "reform" efforts, regardless of who they have fronting for them. They see very poor returns on the latter compared to the kings' fortunes to be reaped from the former and thus focus on severely limiting the right to seek justice for all members of the working classes. There's BIG money in them thar hills.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Why can't we just trust corporate America to do whats best for all the citizens? Surgeons and medical device makers and pharmacists make mistakes - because they're people, too, you know.

Forgive them, as God would, and all our insurance premiums should drop by half, at least.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

I hear ya, Nancy... I often thank the idiots that plowed into us... I say with sarcasm... and disappeared without their insurance paying a cent to help cover any cost for medical bills, rehab therapy, medicines, or the the fact that my life changed forever... and I don't even care about gaining anything for pain or suffering. I just wanted them to pay the hospital and therapy bills they rightfully owe through their negligence.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 7:52

I just yesterday learned about a young mother whose hyponatremia (low sodium level) was corrected too quickly in a hospital, leading directly to an osmosis demyelinating syndrome that has resulted in weakness and lack of control of her muscles and cognitive dysfunction. She'll need help with her activities of daily living and someone else to make decisions for her for the rest of her life. Her husband reportedly is already looking for an escape--to the life he expected to have. There's no escape for her.

That fast sodium infusion can have this dreadful result was well known when this happened last summer. The medical center is 100% at fault. Yet in many states with tort "reform" she (via her parents, who will most likely spend the rest of their lives caring for her) literally could not sue for more than her actual medical bills resulting from this.

Courtesy of the successes greedy interests have had already but are not nearly enough for them.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 21, 13 at 11:33

I hear ya, Nancy... I often thank the idiots that plowed into us... I say with sarcasm... and disappeared without their insurance paying a cent to help cover any cost for medical bills, rehab therapy, medicines, or the the fact that my life changed forever... and I don't even care about gaining anything for pain or suffering. I just wanted them to pay the hospital and therapy bills they rightfully owe through their negligence.

*

So, the vehicle that hit the one you were in just left the scene?
Was the driver identified?

If so, attorneys will take the case on a contingency basis and it does not cost up front, you don't pay until you get a settlement or if you get a settlement. We took so many cases like this, and so did every litigation law firm--they didn't even pay the filing fee or copying costs.

Why didn't the insurance company that insured the car in which you were a passenger pay for your medical costs?

I am perplexed how you got nada nothing for your injuries in this situation that you bring up.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Let me answer re laws in Colorado

So, the vehicle that hit the one you were in just left the scene?
Was the driver identified?

If so, attorneys will take the case on a contingency basis and it does not cost up front, you don't pay until you get a settlement or if you get a settlement. We took so many cases like this, and so did every litigation law firm--they didn't even pay the filing fee or copying costs.

Why didn't the insurance company that insured the car in which you were a passenger pay for your medical costs?

Colorado allows policies (via insurance company lobbying) what the insurance company will only pay you, the car owner, for medical expenses, $25,000 in a wreck. Companies are free to issue polices that cover more, but good luck finding one - I don't think they're even offered at any agency I've heard of.

You do have to carry $350,000 liability in case you cause the wreck, and that goes to the other guy.

So if you get hit by an uninsured driver, he has no liability insurance and your own policy limits you to $25,000. Which will buy you a trip to the ER.

And now, if it turns out that the uninsured guy who hit you is some unemployed 22 year old kid who sleeps in his Moms' basement, whose entire net worth consists of a his newly wrecked car and an iPod, you can sue him all you want but it isn't going to help much.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Demi, I've gone over the same story more times than I can remember... I'm not doing it again. It's a done deal, and it's all in the past. End of transmission.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

The question remains, what about the people whose auto Jodik was riding in?

What about THEIR insurance?


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 12:52

Demi, I've gone over the same story more times than I can remember... I'm not doing it again. It's a done deal, and it's all in the past. End of transmission.

*

Well, Jodik, I have heard a lot about you not having money for lawyers (and have told you about contingency cases) and I've heard a lot about your injuries, but I do not ever recall hearing about why your friend's or whoever's car you were riding in--why their insurance did not pay for at least some of your medical bills.

I have never seen you mention this or address it.

Your business--but since you bring it up from time to time as I said it is all very perplexing for you to give certain information and these questions I have not seen answered.

Being an investigator by nature and trade, it's difficult to assess a situation without information.

Not that it matters to me I just do not understand why you had no recourse at all from either the person responsible for the accident, from the insurance company that insured the vehicle in which you were a passenger, from your own insurance, from Medicaid, or any other sources in regard to this accident in relation to the long lasting injuries you sustained.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 13:56


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

For the umpteenth time... both drivers had the same insurance from the same company. It became a matter of no one getting paid beyond a paltry sum for anything... not the damaged vehicles, not the medical bills involved, not anything... and it's beyond difficult to squeeze blood out of a turnip... especially when that turnip rolls away and is never seen again.

I do hope that satisfies your curiosity.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 13:59

For the umpteenth time... both drivers had the same insurance from the same company. It became a matter of no one getting paid beyond a paltry sum for anything... not the damaged vehicles, not the medical bills involved, not anything... and it's beyond difficult to squeeze blood out of a turnip... especially when that turnip rolls away and is never seen again.

I do hope that satisfies your curiosity.

*

Well thank you, Jodik, if I had seen that information I wouldn't have brought it up. I don't recall ever knowing that.

So there was reimbursement for some expenses since you mentioned "a paltry sum" from the insurance companies that insured the auto in which you were a passenger and that of the other driver. Even minimum coverage per state law should insure that some medical reimbursement go to passengers for injuries sustained.

I'm only curious to the extent of solving what seems like to me a mystery that you bring up from time to time.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 17:31

Do we need tort reform?

Demos public response :
Not needed, The public needs protection!

Demos private response : Lawyers are Big contributors!

--------------------

Repubs public response :
Tort reform will keep insurance prices low!

Repubs private response :
Damn lawyers contribute to the Demos!

----------------------------------------------

It has nothing to do with HC costs.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

  • Posted by rosie NE Georgia 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 18:04

THIS Democrat says if we strive to assure justice as best possible the rest will be taken care of.

The right to seek redress of grievances is as old as villagers picking insects off each other around the evening fire. Yet in many parts of this country we have managed to fall below that standard.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Retaining an attorney was the very first thing we did... and it got us absolutely nowhere, because there's still no way to squeeze blood out of a turnip... especially when said turnip disappears.

And before you say another word, a very dear friend of ours is one of the most respected private investigators in the US, and we worked it from every angle we possibly could. You can't obtain something if it doesn't exist.

It's all in the past, anyway... I simply reserve the right to btch about it every once in a while. I think I've earned that right.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Thanks jodik.


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

I just saw an ad on TV for one of our famous personal injury/ambulance chasers hawking his services for the metal-on-metal hip settlement.

This post was edited by david52 on Fri, Nov 22, 13 at 22:50


 o
RE: Why we need to stop frivolous healthcare law suits

Oddly enough, David, those ambulance type chasers are becoming much more prevalent with ads looking to get in on class action suits against giant corporations that make just about every drug available and quite a few medical items or devices... and then, of course, you have your personal injury lawyers, some specializing in motorcycle accidents, some auto... a veritable feast for the courtroom! ;-)

I don't think it matters much whether one retains a shark that advertises on television, or a recommended top attorney for the area and accident type in question... if there's no one available to sue, and nothing to retrieve, it's all kind of pointless.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here