Category Archives: Defective Medical Devices

Zimmer Biomet Lawsuit

Patients implanted with the Zimmer Biomet Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System have reported fractures, impaired shoulder movement, permanent loss of shoulder function and other serious injuries requiring revision surgery. Unfortunately, patients forced to undergo revision surgery after their shoulder implant fails may suffer from a painful recovery, and the surgery itself may increase the risk of serious infection or death. If you or a loved one has suffered severe injuries allegedly associated with Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder implant, consult an experienced product liability lawyer today to discuss the possibility of filing a defective shoulder replacement lawsuit against the manufacturing company.

What is the Zimmer Biomet Reverse Shoulder Implant?

Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder Humeral is an artificial shoulder replacement device surgically implanted to help relieve pain, reduce weakness and restore arm movement in patients with rotator cuff tears who have developed arthropathy, a severe type of shoulder arthritis. The Reverse Shoulder implant is specifically designed for patients who are not candidates for a traditional shoulder replacement, and for those who have had a shoulder replacement that failed in the past. The implant uses components in a reverse fashion than normal shoulder operation, utilizing other muscles surrounding the rotator cuff to assist with movement, being that the rotator cuff is no longer able to function properly.

Why is There a Zimmer Biomet Shoulder Injury Lawsuit?

The Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder implant was developed by Zimmer Biomet to help patients with severe damage to their rotator cuff improve their strength, stability and range of motion, so that they could engage in more of their regular activities. However, these devices have been linked to a high rate of fracture possibly leading to other severe injuries. In fact, the complications associated with the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant are so serious that patients who have received the artificial shoulder may end up needing additional surgeries to remove or replace the device in the event of a fracture. As a result, the Zimmer Biomet shoulder implant has been subjected to a Class I recall, which is the most serious type of recall, reserved for situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of the device will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

Side Effects Linked to Zimmer Biomet’s Shoulder Implant

Zimmer Biomet’s Reverse Shoulder implant has been linked to a higher than expected fracture rate, and patients who have been implanted with the artificial shoulder may require revision surgery to repair, remove or replace the device with another implant, should it fracture. Unfortunately, failed shoulder implants requiring additional surgeries may put patients at risk for serious side effects, possibly including:

  • Infection
  • Tissue and bone damage
  • Severe pain
  • Impaired shoulder movement
  • Permanent loss of shoulder movement
  • Death

For some patients who were implanted with a Zimmer Biomet shoulder, receiving a replacement device may no longer be an option, and for others, the risks associated with revision surgery are too great.

Links to Zimmer Biomet Studies Alleging Side Effects

Although research is limited regarding the outcomes of patients who undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty procedures, it has been reported that device fractures may increase the risk of serious or life-threatening complications in patients implanted with a shoulder replacement system. In one study published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, researchers found that patients who experienced a fracture after shoulder replacement surgery “had a 6 times higher incidence of death within 30 days than the general population,” with the causes of death including cardiac, pulmonary and abdominal complications.

Recent Zimmer Biomet News

In February 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of Zimmer Biomet’s Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder, warning that the devices are prone to fracture, which may result in the need for revision surgery. According to the FDA, the Zimmer Biomet shoulder fractures at a higher rate than is stated in the device labeling, and this premature failure can lead to a permanent loss of shoulder function, infection, or in severe cases, death. Prior to the recall being announced by the FDA, Zimmer Biomet had sent an urgent notice to all customers in possession of Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder devices, asking that they identify and quarantine any affected implants in stock, so that the devices could be removed from the facility.

The first case against Zimmer Biomet over injuries allegedly caused by the manufacturer’s defective shoulder device was filed in 2014, by a man who was implanted with a Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder in one shoulder in 2009, and in the other in 2010. Within just a few years of implantation, both shoulder devices failed, and the patient was forced to undergo revision surgeries to replace the implants. Zimmer Biomet agreed to settle this case in 2016 for $350,000. As more information comes to light about the potential for Zimmer Biomet’s reverse shoulder replacement system to cause serious injuries, additional lawsuits are expected to be brought against the medical device maker in the future.

How Do I Join the Zimmer Biomet Lawsuit?

Device manufacturing companies like Zimmer Biomet must be held responsible for any defects in the design of their medical devices, especially when these devices fail prematurely and cause serious injuries to patients, and patients adversely affected by a faulty medical device deserve to be compensated for their injuries. If you or a family member received a recalled Zimmer Biomet Comprehensive Reverse Shoulder System, and you have since suffered a major side effect or required revision surgery to remove the defective implant, you be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries, medical expenses and other damages. Contact the knowledgeable Zimmer Biomet shoulder injury attorneys at the Monroe Law Group as soon as possible to discuss your options for legal recourse.

Hernia Mesh

You may have grounds to file a hernia mesh injury lawsuit against the device manufacturing company, in order to pursue the financial compensation you deserve for your injuries, medical expenses, and other damages.

What is Hernia Mesh?

Hernia mesh is a special type of medical device used to treat a hernia, which occurs when an organ, intestine or fatty tissue protrudes through a hole or weak spot in the surrounding muscle or connective tissue, typically at the abdominal wall. According to the FDA, the most common types of hernias are inguinal (inner groin), femoral (upper thigh/outer groin), incisional (through an incision or scar in the abdomen), ventral (in the abdominal/ventral wall), umbilical (at the belly button), and hiatal (inside the abdomen, along the upper stomach/diaphragm). Some of the most widely-used hernia mesh products include:

  • Atrium’s C-Qur hernia mesh
  • Ethicon’s Physiomesh hernia mesh
  • Ethicon’s Proceed hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s Sepramesh hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s 3DMax hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s PerFix Plug hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s Ventralex ST hernia mesh
  • C.R. Bard’s Ventralight ST hernia mesh
  • Medtronic’s Symbotex hernia mesh
  • Medtronic’s Parietex composite mesh device

Why is there a Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

Hernia mesh is designed to provide additional support to weakened or damaged tissue, and many hernia mesh products contain a type of plastic known as polypropylene, which can cause serious complications if it comes in direct contact with the bowels. Rather than replace the polypropylene with another material, which would have to be extensively studied before being approved by the FDA, mesh manufacturers began to apply various types of coatings to their mesh products, known as composite mesh, in order to create a barrier between the polypropylene and the bowels. Unfortunately, research has shown that even composite mesh can cause serious complications, and a growing number of hernia mesh lawsuits are now being filed by patients who were implanted with a hernia mesh device, and have since suffered one or more serious adverse effects.

Side Effects Linked to Hernia Mesh

According to a report issued by the FDA in 2016, the most common side effects of hernia mesh are the following:

• Pain
• Infection
• Hernia recurrence
• Scar-like tissue that sticks together (adhesion)
• Mesh migration
• Blockage of the large or small intestine (obstruction)
• Bleeding
• Mesh shrinkage
• Abnormal connection between organs, vessels, or intestines (fistula)
• Fluid build-up at the surgical site (seroma)
• A hole in neighboring tissues or organs (perforation)

Links to Hernia Mesh Studies Alleging Side Effects

A number of studies published in recent years have highlighted the potential side effects of hernia mesh, one of the earliest being a study published in 2009, which examined the “problem of mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.” According to the researchers, “The surgeon has to anticipate the significant mesh shrinkage in laparoscopic hernia mesh repair.” Another hernia mesh study was published in the journal Surgical Infections in August 2012, and found that the polypropylene plastic used in many hernia mesh products is “characterized by high tensile strength and vigorous tissue ingrowth, but is unsuitable for intra-abdominal placement because of its tendency to induce bowel adhesions.”

In March 2016, the journal Surgical Endoscopy published research comparing the outcomes of 25 patients implanted with Ethicon’s Physiomesh hernia mesh device and 25 patients implanted with Ventralight hernia mesh by C.R. Bard. According to the study findings, within six months of implantation, 20% of the Physiomesh patients suffered a hernia recurrence, compared to 0% of patients implanted with Ventralight hernia mesh. That same year, a study published in the medical journal Hernia highlighted possible mesh complications in 31% of the 632 patients studied for two years after being implanted with hernia mesh, including necrosis, cellulitis, seroma, hematoma and fistula.

Recent Hernia Mesh News

In April 2016, the FDA published an article on hernia mesh, identifying “pain, infection, hernia recurrence, adhesion and bowel obstruction” as the most common adverse events associated with hernia mesh implants, as well as other possible complications, like mesh migration and mesh shrinkage. Just one month later, Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary removed its Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh device from the market, due to a high rate of complications reported in connection with the hernia mesh. Now, hernia mesh lawsuits involving Ethicon’s Physiomesh device and other hernia mesh products are beginning to move forward in courts across the country, as patients become aware of the potential for the mesh to cause serious side effects.

How Do I Join the Hernia Mesh Lawsuit?

Hernia repair is one of the most common types of surgeries performed in the United States, with nearly half a million patients undergoing surgical hernia repair every year. Unfortunately, patients who have been implanted with a hernia mesh device may be at risk for serious mesh complications, like mesh shrinkage, adhesion, hernia recurrence, pain, infection, and bowel obstruction. If you or a loved one underwent surgery to receive a hernia mesh device, and you have since suffered one or more alleged mesh side effects, contact an experienced hernia mesh injury lawyer today to discuss your legal options.

Power Morcellator

Power Morcellator Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

What is a Power Morcellator?

A power morcellator is an electric surgical instrument commonly used during laparoscopic hysterectomy and uterine fibroid removal (myomectomy) procedures, to cut up large masses of tissues and remove them through a small incision in the abdomen. When power morcellators first came to market, the devices were praised as a good alternative to more traditional surgical methods, as the devices allow surgeons to make minimally invasive incisions in the abdomen, rather than making large incisions through core stomach muscles. The medical devices were designed to reduce recovery time and limit the risk of surgical complications and post-operative pain. However, a growing number of adverse event reports have linked power morcellation to the possible spread of unsuspected cancerous tissue.

Potential Side Effects of Power Morcellation

When power morcellators are used during hysterectomy and myomectomy surgeries, the uterus or fibroids are cut up into smaller pieces inside the abdominal cavity before they are removed from the body. However, as a growing body of research has shown, if any of these tissues contain hidden cancer cells and are not removed from the body, the undiagnosed cancer may spread throughout the pelvis and abdominal cavity, resulting in a significantly upstaged cancer and reducing the chances of the patient’s long-term survival. In one high-profile power morcellator case, Dr. Amy Reed, an anesthesiologist and mother of six, was diagnosed with advanced cancer following a hysterectomy procedure where power morcellation was used. Another case filed in Philadelphia federal court involved a woman who died of metastatic leiomyosarcoma after undergoing a hysterectomy with power morcellation, even though she previously showed no evidence of metastatic cancer.

Link Between Power Morcellation and Cancer

In April 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety communication warning against the use of power morcellation during hysterectomy and myomectomy procedures. According to the FDA, “it is estimated that 1 in 350 women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for the treatment of fibroids is found to have an unsuspected uterine sarcoma, a type of uterine cancer that includes leiomyosarcoma. If laparoscopic power morcellation is performed in women with unsuspected uterine sarcoma, there is a risk that the procedure will spread the cancerous tissue within the abdomen and pelvis, significantly worsening the patient’s likelihood of long-term survival.”

In November 2014, the FDA updated its safety communication, indicating that the agency had conducted a review of published and unpublished scientific literature, in an effort to estimate the prevalence of unsuspected uterine cancer in women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures. According to the updated warning, “the prevalence of unsuspected uterine sarcoma in patients undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for presumed benign leiomyoma is 1 in 352 and the prevalence of unsuspected uterine leiomyosarcoma is 1 in 498.” The FDA also noted that “Both of these estimates are higher than the clinical community previously understood.”

Consult the expert Power Morcellator Attorneys at Monroe Law Group Today

In response to warnings from the FDA regarding the potential for power morcellation to cause the spread of aggressive uterine cancer, Johnson & Johnson immediately suspended worldwide sales of its laparoscopic power morcellators, and other manufacturers of power morcellation devices are expected to follow suit. However, because the J&J recall was voluntary, and because the FDA has yet to issue an official power morcellation recall, many power morcellator devices may actually still be in use in the United States. If you underwent a hysterectomy or myomectomy procedure using power morcellation, and you have since been diagnosed with upstaged uterine cancer, contact the Monroe Law Group today to explore your possible compensation options.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Power Morcellator claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Power Morcellators–commonly used during hysterectomy & uterine fibroid removal (myomectomy) procedures–may be associated with an increased cancer risk. // Monroe Law Group

Mirena IUD

How Mirena IUD Works

Mirena is an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Pharmaceuticals and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000, as a long-acting, reversible birth control device. Made from a medical-grade, polyethylene plastic, Mirena IUD is a flexible, T-shaped device that is implanted in the uterus and slowly releases the progestin birth control hormone levonorgestrel directly into the uterus over time to prevent pregnancy. Because Mirena is designed to be 99% effective in protecting against pregnancy for up to five years, at which point it must be replaced, the intrauterine birth control device has grown in popularity, preferred by many women over birth control pills that must be taken daily to be effective. In 2009, the FDA expanded Mirena’s approval to treat heavy menstrual bleeding in women already using an IUD.

Possible Side Effects of Mirena IUD

Intrauterine devices like Mirena have become the most popular form of reversible birth control in the world, with an estimated 150 million women using IUDs for long-term pregnancy prevention. There is no doubt that Mirena IUD is highly effective in protecting against pregnancy for up to five years, but there have been a growing number of reports of women experiencing serious, potentially life-threatening side effects while using the birth control device, including:

  • Perforation of the uterus
  • Ectopic pregnancy
  • Pelvic inflammatory disease
  • Migration of the device to other parts of the body
  • Pseudotumor cerebri (PTC)
  • Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH)
  • Infection
  • Device expulsion
  • Embedment of the device in the abdomen or uterine wall
  • The need for revision surgery

Link Between Mirena IUD and Serious Injuries

Mirena IUD is designed to remain in place for up to five years, at which point the implant can be removed or replaced with another intrauterine device if the woman wants continued protection against pregnancy. In some reported cases of Mirena side effects, however, the device has migrated from its normal position in the uterus, perforated the uterine wall and entered the pelvis, abdominal cavity, bladder or blood vessels. And while Bayer claims that Mirena IUD complications are rare, a study published by the Department of Radiology at the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center indicated that migration of the birth control device is a “frequently encountered complication,” possibly causing severe pain, infections and injury to internal organs.

Another major complication that has been linked to hormonal birth control devices like Mirena IUD is pseudotumor cerebri (PTC), or “false brain tumor,” a condition characterized by an increase of pressure inside the skull that occurs for no apparent reason. In a 1995 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers identified 56 cases where pseudotumor cerebri side effects occurred in women using birth control pills or intrauterine birth control devices like Mirena IUD. More recently, at the 2015 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, research was presented indicating that Bayer’s Mirena IUD was “disproportionately more common among IIH patients than non-IIH patients.”

Pursuing Compensation for Mirena IUD Injuries

Product liability lawsuits brought against Mirena IUD maker Bayer Pharmaceuticals allege that the device manufacturing company failed to provide accurate warnings to consumers and the medical community about the potential for its birth control device to cause devastating side effects in users. Many women claim that Bayer knew about the alleged risk of Mirena IUD complications, yet intentionally withheld information about this risk from the public. If you believe you have been harmed by alleged side effects of Bayer’s Mirena IUD device, contact the Monroe Law Group today for expert legal assistance to explore your possible compensation options.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Mirena IUD claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

IVC Filter

Monroe Law Group – NO FEES UNLESS YOU WIN You pay nothing until you win your case. Monroe Law Group pays for all costs of the lawsuit up front, and if don’t win, you pay nothing! If we win, you pay a percentage of the awarded settlement. Call us now at 877-415-8851 or email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com for your free no obligation case evaluation.

Patients implanted with an IVC filter to reduce their risk of blood clots and pulmonary embolism may be at risk for complications that are equally as dangerous, including vena cava perforation, filter fracture and embolization, and migration of the filter to other parts of the body.

If you received an IVC filter in the past, and you have since suffered a potentially life-threatening side effect as a result, you may be entitled to financial compensation for your injuries and medical expenses. Contact a knowledgeable IVC filter lawyer today to discuss your options for legal recourse.

IVC Filter Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

IVC Filter Described

An inferior vena cava (IVC) filter is a type of vascular filter surgically implanted in the inferior vena cava, the largest vein in the body, responsible for moving deoxygenated blood from the lower legs to the heart and lungs. The cage-like construction of the IVC filter is specifically designed to trap blood clots that break free from the lower extremities, and prevent them from traveling to the lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism or other serious complications. IVC filters were first introduced in the United States in 1979, and use of the devices has increased dramatically over the years. By 2012, doctors had inserted approximately 259,000 IVC filters in patients at risk for blood clots and pulmonary embolism. Some of the most widely-used IVC filter models include:

  • C.R. Bard Recovery
  • C.R. Bard G2 and G2 Express
  • C.R. Bard Eclipse
  • C.R. Bard Meridian
  • Cook Medical Celect
  • Cook Medical Gunther Tulip

Potential IVC Filter Side Effects

Anticoagulant medications are typically prescribed to patients at risk for blood clots, but doctors often use IVC filters in patients who are unable to take blood thinners, or for whom anticoagulant therapy is unsuccessful or inappropriate. However, IVC filters have been linked recently to a host of serious side effects, including:

  • Perforation of the vena cava or blood vessels
  • Migration of the filter to other parts of the body
  • Filter fracture
  • Filter embolization
  • Wrongful death

FDA Warnings for Patients with IVC Filters

Retrievable IVC filters provide short-term protection from blood clots, and are designed to be removed once the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) has passed. However, the FDA has voiced concerns about the fact that “retrievable IVC filters, intended for short-term placement, are not always removed once a patient’s risk for PE subsides.” In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about the alleged risk of IVC filter side effects, highlighting 921 adverse event reports submitted to the agency in connection with the medical devices during the previous five years, including 328 reports of device migration, 146 reports of filter embolization, 70 reports of vena cava perforation, and 56 reports of filter fracture.

In 2014, the FDA updated its IVC filter safety announcement, indicating that the agency had “received reports of adverse events and product problems associated with IVC filters,” including “device migration, filter fracture, embolization (movement of the entire filter or filter fragments to the heart or lungs), perforation of the IVC, and difficulty removing the device.” According to the FDA, retrievable IVC filters should be removed between one to two months after implantation, as long as the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided, in order to reduce the risk of serious complications.

Bard May Have Known About IVC Filter Problems

C.R. Bard is one of the largest manufacturers of IVC filters, and there is evidence that the company may have known about problems with its Recovery filter as early as 2004, yet withheld information about this risk from the public and the FDA. According to reports, Bard hired an independent consultant in 2004 to compare filter fracture and migration rates associated with its new filters to those of older models, and discovered that the Recovery filter was linked to a significantly higher rate of complications than its competitors. Rather than remove the Recovery filter from the market, Bard continued to sell the potentially dangerous device until 2005, when the company replaced the Recovery filter with the nearly identical G2 series of blood clot filters.

Contact Monroe Law Group for assistance with your IVC filter case today

IVC filter lawsuits brought against C.R. Bard and other makers of potentially dangerous blood clot filters allege that the manufacturing companies knew or should have known about the risk of IVC filter side effects, yet failed to provide adequate warnings about this risk to consumers and the medical community. Firms nationwide including Monroe Law Group and Ford and Associates Nationwide Legal Services are accepting IVC Filter cases. If you believe you have been harmed by side effects of a blood clot filter like the Bard Recovery or Bard G2 filter, consult the Monroe Law Group today for legal help. With a qualified IVC filter attorney on your side, you can ensure that your legal rights are protected and seek fair and timely reimbursement for your losses.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue an IVC filter claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

IVC Filters are implanted to reduce blood clot risk, but are associated with serious complications: tissue damage, device breakage or migration, and embolism/DVT. // Monroe Law Group

Bair Hugger Warming Blanket

Bair Hugger Warming Blanket Lawsuit // Monroe Law Group

How Does the Bair Hugger Blanket Work?

The Bair Hugger blanket is a forced-air temperature management device commonly used during knee and hip replacement surgeries to keep patients warm, and to reduce the risk of hypothermia and other surgical complications, like blood loss, infections and prolonged hospital stays. Originally developed by Dr. Scott D. Augustine and sold through his company, Augustine Biomedical and Design, the Bair Hugger warming blanket is now sold by 3M Company and its Arizant Healthcare subsidiary. Like other forced-air warming systems, the Bair Hugger blanket works by filtering air, then gently forcing warm air evenly throughout a disposable blanket that covers the patient before, during and after surgery.

Alleged Side Effects of Forced-Air Warming

Since it was first introduced in 1988, the Bair Hugger blanket has been used on more than 180 million patients, and is still used in more than 80% of hospitals in the United States. However, critics of the patient warming device, which now includes Dr. Augustine himself, say the Bair Hugger blanket shouldn’t be used on patients receiving artificial knee and hip replacement systems, because the medical device can cause the spread of bacteria linked to serious deep joint infections, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), hospitalization, the need for implant revision surgery, sepsis, permanent disability, the need for amputation of the affected limb, and possibly even death.

Link Between Bair Hugger and Infection Injuries

Serious concerns have been raised recently about the safety of the Bair Hugger blanket, and even Dr. Augustine said in a New York Times article, “I am very proud of the old technology. But I am also proud to spread the word that there is a problem.” In one study published in The Bone and Joint Journal in 2011, researchers found that there was a significant increase in the risk of deep joint infections when forced-air warming was used in orthopedic procedures, compared to conductive fabric warming. Another study published in 2012 indicated that forced-air warming blankets like Bair Hugger created convection current activity near the sterile surgical site, which could cause a disruption in the ventilation airflows intended to dispose of airborne contaminants.

Additional studies published in recent years have highlighted the alleged risk of deep joint infections associated with Bair Hugger warming, including a 2013 study published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia, which found that “waste heat from the poorly insulated forced-air warming blanket increased the air temperature on the surgical side of the drape […].” The researchers found that this increase in temperature “created convection currents that rose against the downward unidirectional airflow, causing turbulence over the patient,” which could draw contaminants from below the operating table into the surgical site.

Contact the Monroe Law Group Bair Hugger Injury Legal Team Today

Patients who developed deep joint infections and other potentially life-threatening injuries following surgery where the Bair Hugger blanket was used are pursuing legal claims against 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, alleging that the medical device makers knew about the risk of infection associated with forced-air warming, yet failed to warn patients and healthcare providers about this serious risk. If you believe you have been adversely affected by side effects of the Bair Hugger blanket, consult the legal team at Monroe Law Group today to discuss your legal options. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries and medical bills, which you can pursue by filing a Bair Hugger injury lawsuit against 3M and Arizant.

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a Bair Hugger claim is limited. Call us right away at 877-459-8260, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

Bair Hugger Warming Blankets (often used during hip or knee surgery) may be associated with an increased deep joint infection risk. // Monroe Law Group