Las Vegas Injury & Accident Attorney Blog

In our conversations about healthcare in the United States, we tend to focus on access to care: Who should be insured? At what personal cost? What medical services should be provided? One thing we tend to take for granted is the quality and safety of these medical interventions, but this is an assumption we make at our own peril. A new wave of Nevada product liability lawsuits is focusing on major medical devices that appear to have been rushed to market, to the detriment of hundreds of users.

This August will mark one year since DePuy Orthopedics — a division of health-and-beauty giant Johnson & Johnson — issued a massive product recall for thousands of its ASR artificial hip implants. Synthetic hip implants are designed to simulate the hip socket that holds the ball of the femur bone in place while permitting it to rotate. As a person ages out of middle age and begins considering options such as transitioning to a Nevada assisted care facility, the hip joints are often among the first to wear out and make movement difficult or painful. The ASR device attracted thousands of eager users by promising an industry-leading 15-year lifespan, but hundreds of elderly patients endured painful implant surgeries only for these devices to fail or need replacement within five years.

Failure rates for the ASR were two to three times higher than is common for these devices (sometimes known as “critical implants”), with approximately one out of every six requiring replacement or secondary surgery. The most common problem is the product’s tendency to shed tiny particles of metal that intoxicate surrounding muscle and bone tissues and leave large dead areas in the upper thigh. To be clear, investigations have determined that these symptoms were not related to unsound installation or other medical malpractice — the devices themselves were defective. Patients were treated with bad medicine.

Critics blame a flawed regulatory system for this latest round of Nevada medical device injuries. Unlike in the pharmaceutical industry — where patent laws prevent copycat products and approval by the Food and Drug Administration requires clinical trials — medical device manufacturers can circumvent the toughest scrutiny and testing by incorporating new technologies into older, proven designs to take advantage of a fast-track  loophole. Observers say the FDA should end this workaround and create an orthopedic registry that could better track medical device failures. Other countries have successfully implemented these reforms to make patients safer without limiting new, helpful, and safe developments in medical technology.

If a loved one received an ASR hip implant and now suffers from increased pain, seek medical attention to determine if the device may be degrading within the person’s body or otherwise failing. If you discover that this is the case, contact us for a free consultation about seeking compensation for the medical device injury.

Share and Enjoy

As elected officials begin a major showdown over the federal budget and the possibility increases that the national government may run out of money, one federal agency is working overtime on automobile safety. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has reviewed automobile accident data and concluded that it needs to issue new guidelines for parents to help them select the most appropriate child safety restraints.

Preventing serious spinal cord, back, and brain injuries in children in the event of car accidents is an important but evolving pursuit, as the NHTSA’s new recommendations show. For many years, small children sat unrestrained in passenger vehicles and were among the most commonly killed in Nevada motor vehicle accidents. As child safety seats gained popularity beginning in the 1960s, a debate began over which designs were the safest. Recent guidance has recommended different types of seats — rear- versus front-facing, cross-chest versus over-shoulder restraints — for different child size/weight combinations that tend to vary with age. The NHTSA is now recommending that parents use the most restraining seat that their child can still appropriately fit into — that is, rather than “graduating up” to each new type of infant car seat as soon as the child reaches the minimum height/weight/age, linger at a more restrictive, more protective seat for as long as is safely possible.

The Transportation Department’s says that the safest child restraint is the one that is used every time, which is certainly true. However, this attitude can give cover to manufacturers of child safety seats who all too often shirk their responsibilities. Countless studies on many major brands and popular models of child safety seats have shown that manufacturers cut costs and sometimes prioritize ease of use over life-saving functionality. Product liability lawsuits over unsafe car seats remain a contentious and important part of the legal landscape. If your child has been hurt or killed in an automobile accident due to a faulty child restraint, contact us today for a consultation and legal guidance on how to seek justice for your family’s tragedy.

Share and Enjoy

Not far from Southern Nevada, a county sheriff’s office is reeling after four of its staff were seriously injured in a helicopter crash in a mountainous area. The pilot — a veteran of the Vietnam War with some 40 years of experience — was killed and three other passengers suffered major back and body injuries. All three survivors were airlifted from the scene, with one listed in critical condition and the other two in serious condition when they were hospitalized.

At this time, the circumstances of the crash remain mysterious as investigators analyze the crash scene and other information. Because the pilot was so experienced, the investigation may focus not on pilot error but rather for evidence of a mechanical failure. An equipment problem is often the culprit in Nevada airplane crashes and helicopter accidents, especially when the pilot has vast flying experience. Failure to continue regular maintenance is a frequent cause of a crash for low-budget skydiving or aerial tour companies.

The helicopter, a Hughes 500, was conducting a surveillance operation to seek possible locations for future installations of telecommunications equipment. The mountainous terrain may have figured into the accident, as abrupt changes in landscape can create unpredictable weather patterns, drafts, etc. Nonetheless, those injured and their families will likely pursue a Nevada product liability lawsuit with little hesitation if the investigation reveals evidence that a component of the aircraft was defective.

If you or a loved one have been hurt or killed in an airplane, biplane, helicopter, skydiving, or aerial tour, you should contact our experienced Southern Nevada aircraft accident lawyers today. We are familiar with the most common issues in these cases, and we have also seen a diverse enough set of cases to know how to handle virtually any airplane crash lawsuit. We offer free consultations and can also visit interested clients at a hospital or other facility.

Share and Enjoy

When a Nevada family tries to bring a lawsuit against a major company for wrongful death, injury from a defective product, or some other instance of corporate irresponsibility, the defendant company has available — and often uses — a variety of legal obstructions and other strategies. These tactics include filing baseless motions to dismiss, “shopping around” for a favorable judge or jurisdiction, and attacking the admissibility of expert testimony as evidence.

In the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , the Supreme Court issued a ruling intended to settle several contradictory approaches to the use of expert witnesses in personal injury cases. A trial court judge is given the responsibility of filtering out evidence, arguments, and testimony that are not relevant to addressing the issues at trial. Judges have at their disposal a variety of case precedent decisions as well as Rules of Evidence appropriate to the case’s jurisdiction. Because both the outcome of a negligence, property liability, or other suit and the nature of the damages awarded are so vital to the future of the plaintiff family, judges have a duty to exercise this power appropriately.

In Daubert, the Court was scrutinizing decisions made by the trial court and the appellate body that affirmed the original ruling. The issue was the admissibility as evidence of eight expert witnesses who testified of the likely links between a pregnancy drug called Bendectin and certain birth defects that affected the plaintiffs. Despite the salience and breadth of this testimony, the judge refused to admit it into the trial. The judge reasoned that the testimony did not prove a link between use of Bendectin and the birth defects, and therefore the evidence would be confusing to the jury and devoid of any hope of shining light on the topics at issues. The result was to effectively permit judges to trade their black jurists’ robes for the white lab coats of scientist, placing them center-stage in Nevada product liability lawsuits.

The Supreme Court decided that this enhancement of judicial influence was not appropriate and that the judge’s role should be limited to deciding the relevance, robustness, and apparent rigor of the testimony or evidence rather than judging whether or not s/he found it to be personally convincing. The jury is the audience to be convinced, not the judge. If you have a Nevada personal injury case with unique legal issues, contact us to find out how we can make use of expert testimony to support your case.

Share and Enjoy