(619) 777-1234

Taxotere Chemotherapy Lawsuits Claim Sanofi Hid Permanent Hair Loss Side Effects

News Lawsuits Latest News

Taxotere Chemotherapy Lawsuits Claim Sanofi Hid Permanent Hair Loss Side Effects

“What many cancer patients don’t know about Taxotere, however, is that the chemotherapy medication has been linked to an increased risk of hair loss (alopecia) that may become permanent, and pending Taxotere lawsuits accuse Sanofi-Aventis of failing to warn the public and healthcare providers about this risk.”

The Taxotere lawsuit was filed by Ami Dodson, and includes allegations that the breast cancer medication caused her to suffer permanent hair loss, a condition called alopecia, and that Sanofi-Aventis engaged in deceptive marketing practices to improve Taxotere sales, while hiding the drug’s increased toxicity compared to similar chemotherapy medications.

Sanofi’s Deceptive Taxotere Marketing

The alleged Taxotere scheme began in 1996, the year Taxotere was approved by the FDA, and involved Sanofi instructing its employees to misrepresent the benefits of Taxotere’s “off-label” uses to improve its marketability. Sanofi is also accused of paying kickbacks to medical professionals in order to persuade them to prescribe Taxotere for off-label uses not approved by the FDA. As a result of Sanofi’s allegedly deceptive marketing practices, Taxotere sales skyrocketed from $424 million in 2000 to $1.4 billion in 2004, largely influenced by marketing based on clinical trials sponsored by the drug manufacturing company itself.

“Contrary to defendants’ claims of superior efficacy, post-market surveillance has shown that the more potent and more toxic Taxotere does not, in fact, offer increased efficacy or benefits over other taxanes, as defendants have claimed and advertised,” Dodson’s claim states. The Taxotere lawsuit also alleges that, “Defendants concealed the existence of studies from the FDA, physicians and patients that refuted defendants’ claims.” One of these studies was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008, and concluded that a rival chemotherapy drug was more effective for certain patients, yet Sanofi continued to promote Taxotere’s “superior efficacy,” according to Dodson.

Taxotere Therapy May Cause Permanent Hair Loss

Although temporary hair loss is a common side effect of most chemotherapy medications, in most cases, the hair grows back once the treatment is completed. Unfortunately, studies have shown that hair loss from Taxotere may become permanent and may occur over the entire body, including loss of eyelashes, eyebrows and pubic hair. In the 1990s, Sanofi-Aventis sponsored the GEICAM study to compare the safety profiles of two types of chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer patients, and by 2005, clinical trial results showed that 9.2% of patients taking Taxotere during chemotherapy suffered hair loss that lasted 10 years or longer. Dodson’s product liability lawsuit alleges that the drug manufacturing company withheld these results and others from the public.

Sanofi “Preyed” on Vulnerable Cancer Patients

According to Dodson, she never would have used Taxotere if she had known it could cause permanent hair loss, especially since there are other less toxic chemotherapy medications available. “Permanent baldness (permanent alopecia) is a disfiguring condition, especially for women,” Dodson says in her complaint. “Women who experience disfiguring permanent alopecia as a result of the use of Taxotere suffer great mental anguish as well as economic damages, including but not limited to loss of work or inability to work due to significant psychological damage.”

There are close to three million women in the United States with a history of breast cancer, and nearly 75% of these women are prescribed the chemotherapy drug Taxotere. In Dodson’s lawsuit, she alleges that “Defendants [preyed] on one of the most vulnerable group of individuals at the most difficult time in their lives.” She also states that, “Defendants obtained billions of dollars in increased revenues at the expense of unwary cancer victims simply hoping to survive their condition and return to a normal life.”

Pursuing Compensation for Taxotere Hair Loss Side Effects

The main point raised in Dodson’s lawsuit, a point expected to be raised in future Taxotere hair loss lawsuits as well, is that Sanofi knew that its chemotherapy drug was more dangerous than its competitors’ products and frequently caused permanent hair loss, but still went to great lengths to hide the problem from consumers and promote the medication’s alleged superiority. As a result of Sanofi’s allegedly deceptive actions, former Taxotere users who have experienced permanent alopecia are now pursuing legal claims against Sanofi, seeking financial compensation for their injuries, medical bills and psychological pain and suffering.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 866-308-1092 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

Symptoms and Complications of Retrievable IVC Filters

In the midst of growing concerns about the alleged risk of complications from inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, which are designed to reduce the risk of blood clots, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, a new study warns that retrievable IVC filters may actually increase the risk of blood clots and deep vein thrombosis when they are left in place for an extended period of time. Hundreds of IVC filter lawsuits have already been brought against C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and other manufacturers of retrievable blood clot filters for injuries to patients, and as researchers continue to investigate the potential risks of IVC filters, it is ultimately expected that several thousand product liability lawsuits will be filed against IVC filter manufacturing companies.

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 866-308-1092 or email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com for your free no obligation case evaluation.

What are Retrievable IVC Filters?

IVC filters are cage-like devices implanted in the inferior vena cava to capture and trap blood clots that may break free within the body, preventing them from traveling to the heart and lungs and causing a pulmonary embolism or other serious complications. In recent years, new designs have been developed that allow the filter to be removed from the inferior vena cava once the risk of pulmonary embolism has subsided. However, IVC filter side effects have been tied to thousands of serious and sometimes fatal injuries occurring when the filter migrated out of position, punctured the vein, or embolized to the heart or lungs, and many of these problems have been attributed to the issue of the filters being left in place for long periods of time.

FDA Warnings for IVC Filter Recipients

In light of growing concerns about possible IVC filter complications, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued several warnings regarding the potential risks of IVC filters, including a 2010 safety announcement, which highlighted 921 adverse event reports submitted to the FDA in connection with the filters from 2005 to 2010. In 2014, the FDA updated its safety alert, indicating that “implanting physicians and clinicians responsible for the ongoing care of patients with retrievable IVC filters [should] consider removing the filter as soon as protection from pulmonary embolism is no longer needed,” preferably within 29 to 54 days after implantation.

Possible Side Effects of Removable IVC Filters

According to a growing body of research, retrievable IVC filters may be associated with an increased risk of serious complications in patients, including a risk of filter migration, perforation of the inferior vena cava, filter fracture, and filter embolization. Studies have also found that retrievable IVC filters may actually increase the risk of blood clots and deep vein thrombosis, the very conditions they are designed to prevent. In this latest study, published this month in the medical journal JACC Cardiovascular Interventions, researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York indicate that unretrieved IVC filter thrombosis may account for 2.6% to 4% of all cases of deep vein thrombosis in patients implanted with blood clot filters.

Removable IVC filters have become increasingly more popular over the past decade, for use among patients at risk for pulmonary embolism who are unable to take anticoagulant medications, and the researchers involved in this study concluded that, “due to the substantial increase in the number of IVC filters placed in the United States and the very low filter retrieval rates, clinicians are faced with a very large population of patients at risk for developing IVC thrombosis.” Unfortunately, the makers of retrievable IVC filters have been accused of failing to issue adequate warnings about the importance of removing the devices to reduce the risk of complications, which may become more likely the longer the filter remains in place.

IVC Filter Complications are a Growing Concern

According to the researchers involved in the JACC study, patients who have untreated IVC filter blood clots face a 90% chance of suffering post-thrombotic syndrome if the blood clot filter is not removed, a 45% chance of experiencing disabling venous claudication, a 30% chance of suffering a pulmonary embolism, and a 15% chance of a venous ulceration. In an editorial accompanying the study, Dr. Michael R. Jaff of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston writes, “Of tremendous importance is [the researchers’] recognition that the most common cause of this challenging disorder is thrombosis of previously deployed IVC filters.” He also warns that, “With the rapid expansion in placement of IVC filters, particularly in the United States, we can expect this problem to actually increase.”

Pradaxa Blood Thinner Linked to Bleeding Injuries, Heart Attack/Stroke

Have you or a loved one suffered any of these conditions during or after Pradaxa treatment?

When Pradaxa was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010, it was indicated to prevent strokes and harmful blood clots in patients with a heart condition called atrial fibrillation, which is characterized by an irregular heartbeat that can cause blood to pool in the heart’s upper chamber. By 2012, just two years after Pradaxa entered the market in the United States, more than 3.7 million U.S. patients had filled prescriptions for the blood thinner. Unfortunately, around that same time, Pradaxa treatment was blamed for more than 500 patient deaths. According to adverse event reports, using Pradaxa may result in an increased risk of the following side effects:

  • Internal or external bleeding requiring hospitalization
  • Heart attack
  • Stroke
  • Wrongful death

Did a medical doctor confirm your condition or diagnosis?

Atrial fibrillation affects more than two million Americans, and people with this condition have a nearly five-times increased risk of suffering a stroke than other people, which is why they are often prescribed blood thinners like Pradaxa. However, reports from healthcare professionals, federal regulators and respected medical journals indicate that the potential health risks of Pradaxa treatment may outweigh any possible benefits of the medication, and Pradaxa users who have suffered bleeding or other problems while taking the anticoagulant drug are advised to seek immediate medical attention to obtain an official diagnosis.

Are you currently represented by an attorney regarding this matter?

According to the Institute of Safe Medication Practices’ (ISMP) QuarterWatch report, the FDA received 817 reports of adverse events tied to Pradaxa therapy in 2011 alone. However, the incidence of uncontrollable bleeding and other complications from Pradaxa is believed to be underreported, and, according to additional reports from manufacturers, health professionals and medical databases, Pradaxa was associated with a total of 3,781 adverse events in 2011, 542 of which were fatal. When it comes to pursuing financial compensation for alleged Pradaxa side effects, it is imperative that you enlist the help of a qualified product liability lawyer, to improve your chances of winning your case.

Would you like an attorney to contact you regarding a free case review?

Former Pradaxa users across the country are pursuing legal claims against Boehringer Ingelheim, and in May 2014, the pharmaceutical drug company settled more than 4,000 Pradaxa lawsuits for $650 million. If you or a loved one has suffered uncontrollable bleeding, heart attack, stroke, or another devastating side effect, and you believe Pradaxa treatment to be the cause, contact the Pradaxa litigation attorneys at the Monroe Law Group today to discuss your legal options. You may have grounds to file a Pradaxa lawsuit against Boehringer Ingelheim, in order to seek reimbursement for your medical expenses, loss of income, pain and suffering, and other related damages.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 866-308-1092 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

J&J $72 million ovarian cancer verdict

  • Jury foreman says it was clear J&J was `hiding something’
  • Company faces about 1,200 more suits over talc products

Call us at 866-308-1092, or email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, for a free case review if you or a loved one suffered ovarian cancer after using Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder or another Talcum Powder product.

Johnson & Johnson must pay $72 million to the family of a woman who blamed her fatal ovarian cancer on the company’s talcum powder in the first state-court case over the claims to go to trial.

The world’s largest maker of health-care products faces accusations by the family of a woman who died that it knew decades ago that talc, the Earth’s softest mineral, was linked to ovarian cancer. The verdict may set the tone for whether J&J fights or tries to settle 1,200 lawsuits over products such as baby powder.

J&J $72 million ovarian cancer verdict // Monroe Law Group

To win the case, lawyers for the family of Jackie Fox, who died of ovarian cancer last year, will have to prove that talc in J&J’s products caused her disease and the company knew the risk and failed to warn customers.

J&J’s internal documents will show it knew of studies connecting talc use and ovarian cancer but continued to market it, particularly to African-American and Hispanic women, plaintiff’s attorney Allen Smith told jurors at the start of trial Tuesday in state court in St. Louis. “The evidence — the internal documents — will show that the company valued profits over human life,” he said.

The “best and most recent” studies show no link between talc and ovarian cancer, Gene Williams, a J&J attorney, countered. “We don’t have to warn based on a plaintiff’s suspicions.”

The trial, before a jury of nine women and three men, is expected to last two to three weeks. Either side, to win, will have to persuade nine of the 12 jurors.
Last week, the judge rejected J&J’s bid to dismiss the suit, saying there was “ample evidence” that might lead a jury to conclude it conspired to hide the risks of talc. The company based its request in part on an April 2014 statement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that it didn’t find “conclusive evidence” of a link between talc used for feminine hygiene and ovarian cancer.

‘Mere Cosmetic Products’

The FDA has “a limited scope of regulatory authority over mere cosmetic products,” the judge said.

J&J also contends that Fox’s family can’t prove talc caused the Birmingham, Alabama, resident’s cancer and that regardless, a warning label wouldn’t have stopped her from using it.

“The cause of ovarian cancer is unknown,” Williams told the St. Louis jury Tuesday. Fox had several other risk factors, including blocked fallopian tubes, Williams said.
The Fox family isn’t claiming that talc was the sole cause of her cancer, but that it was “a contributing factor,” Smith said. The plaintiff doesn’t have to prove that talc is the only cause for J&J to be held liable, he said.
Fox “suffered horribly” and underwent several rounds of chemotherapy before dying at the age of 62, Smith said.

J&J marketed its Shower to Shower brand talc for feminine hygiene. One 1988 ad promised “just a sprinkle a day keeps odor away.” Fox said in a deposition about six months before she died that she was “raised on” Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc and used it every morning until she was diagnosed with cancer. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., which acquired the Shower to Shower brand in 2012, isn’t a defendant in the case.

Risk Finding

Researchers began linking talc to ovarian cancer in the 1970s, the family claims. Evidence in the trial will include studies by Daniel Cramer, a Harvard University professor and doctor at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who found in 1982 that women who reported genital-talc use faced a 92 percent increase in the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Cramer, in a new study with colleagues released in December in the journal Epidemiology, concluded talc was associated with a 33 percent rise in the risk of ovarian cancer, which worsened the longer it was used.

“J&J was aware of every one of these studies going back 30 to 40 years,” Smith told jurors Tuesday. A government study in the mid-1990s showed that talc caused cancer in rats, spurring J&J and others in the industry to form a task force as a “defense strategy” to prevent government regulation, he said.

Multiple government agencies have rejected calling for warning labels on products that include talc, said Williams, the J&J lawyer. The FDA held two days of hearings on the issue in the mid-1990s, and found no connection between talc and ovarian cancer, he said.

Talc is an ingredient in products as varied as wallboard and the powder that keeps elastic balloons from sticking together. Baby powder is estimated to be an $18.8 million market in the U.S., according to the Statistic Brain Research Group. About 19 percent of U.S. households use J&J’s brand, according to another research group, Statista.

Corn starch has been widely substituted for talc as an absorbent in baby powder and feminine hygiene products. The American Cancer Society advised in 1999 that women use corn starch-based products in the genital area. J&J, which introduced a baby powder using corn starch in the 1970s, continues to offer products that include talc and maintains the substance is safe.

Talc-related claims may generate some high-dollar verdicts, said Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan professor who teaches classes about how drugs are developed and regulated.
“Anytime you bring a case with the C word to trial, there’s a chance for a big verdict,” Gordon said in an interview. “People will be watching this one closely.”

The damages could add up for J&J if it’s found liable. Fox’s case is one of about 1,000 filed in state and federal courts in Missouri. About 200 more have been brought in New Jersey.
About 20,000 women in the U.S. are diagnosed with ovarian cancer annually and more than 14,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium in 2014 put the increased cancer risk at 24 percent. That study, like Cramer’s, concluded women who used talc products on areas other than their genitals didn’t face increased cancer risk. But another study that year published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found talc use on women’s genitals “does not appear to influence ovarian cancer risk.”

“The safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence and peer-reviewed studies,” Carol Goodrich, a company spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement before the trial.

The case is Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, Cause No. 1422-CC09012-01, Division 10, Missouri Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial District (St. Louis).

Alert: Due to statute of limitations, the time you have to pursue a claim is limited. Call us right away at 866-308-1092, email us at intake@monroelawgroup.com, or complete the form on this page now.

$12.5 Million Awarded in Ethicon Prolift Tranvasginal Mesh Trial

What is Transvaginal Mesh?

Transvaginal mesh (TVM) is a type of implantable mesh designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI) that has been linked to a number of severe complications allegedly associated with defects in the design of the mesh. According to a growing body of research, women who receive vaginal mesh implants may be at risk for devastating complications caused by the mesh eroding in the vagina or otherwise not functioning as intended, and in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) indicated that it had received more than 1,000 reports of adverse events involving POP or SUI repair with surgical mesh in the previous three years.

Compensation for Surgical Mesh Injuries

In light of the alleged risk of transvaginal mesh injuries, women across the country are pursuing legal claims against the makers of the allegedly defective devices. This latest surgical mesh award was delivered by a jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on December 21, in a product liability lawsuit filed by Patria Hammons, who received $5.5 million in compensatory damages for severe pain, permanent injuries and the need for multiple surgeries to repair or remove her mesh implant. The following day, the jury added $7 million in punitive damages against Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon subsidiary, designed to punish the manufacturing company for claims including gross negligence and reckless disregard for consumer health and safety.

Mesh May Be Defectively Designed

According to Patria Hammons’ claim, she received the Ethicon Prolift mesh implant in 2009, to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP), a common medical condition characterized by weakened or damaged pelvic muscles and tissues that results in the bladder, uterus, rectum or bowel sagging into the vaginal canal. Hammons indicates that the defective design of her transvaginal mesh device caused scar tissue to develop and resulted in the mesh eroding into her bladder, which caused her severe pain. As a result of complications from the surgical mesh, Hammons required multiple surgeries to repair the damage caused by the implant, and has been left with permanent injuries.

Transvaginal Mesh Lawsuits

Hammons’ lawsuit joins a growing number of cases brought over side effects of transvaginal mesh, and all vaginal mesh complaints pending in the federal court system have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in the Southern District of West Virginia, for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). All of the surgical mesh complaints involve similar allegations that the makers of the medical devices failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers and the medical community about the potential for transvaginal mesh to cause serious side effects in users.

An Experienced TVM Lawyer Can Help

In addition to mesh erosion, which is one of the mesh complications Patria Hammons experienced, transvaginal mesh has been linked to a number of devastating side effects like infection injuries, pain during intercourse, recurrence of POP or SUI, nerve damage, chronic pain and the need for additional surgeries to remove the mesh. If you received a vaginal mesh implant in the past, and you have since suffered one or more major mesh complications, contact an experienced product liability lawyer today for legal help. You may be entitled to compensation for your injuries, which you can pursue by filing a vaginal mesh lawsuit against the allegedly negligent mesh manufacturing company.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 866-308-1092 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

Illinois Man Alleges Deep Joint Infection Injuries from Bair Hugger Warming Blanket

Deep Joint Infection from Warming Blanket

According to his claim, Larry Young underwent surgery to repair a leg fracture in June 2013, and the procedure, called an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), involved realigning a fractured leg bone using steel rods. During surgery, the Bair Hugger forced-air warming blanket was used to help control Young’s temperature, and the product liability lawsuit alleges that problems with the design of the medical device allowed contaminants to enter the sterile surgical site, causing a serious periprosthetic infection. As a result of his deep joint infection, Young indicates that he experienced severe, chronic pain, and required multiple surgeries to treat the infection and remove the devices used in the leg fracture repair surgery.

Bair Hugger Blanket’s Defective Design

Unfortunately, because the medical team that performed Young’s surgery was unaware of the link between forced-air warming and deep joint infections, the Bair Hugger blanket was also used during the first stage of Young’s revision surgery in November 2013. “The Defendants concealed and continue to conceal their knowledge of the Bair Hugger’s unreasonably dangerous risks from Plaintiff, other consumers, and the medical community,” Young’s lawsuit states. “The Defendants failed to conduct adequate and sufficient post-marketing surveillance after they began marketing, advertising, distributing and selling the Bair Hugger.”

Similar allegations have been raised in Bair Hugger lawsuits filed in courts across the country, on behalf of consumers who underwent orthopedic surgery for knee or hip replacement systems where the patient warming blanket was used, and subsequently suffered deep joint infections, MRSA, sepsis or other potentially life-threatening injuries. The product liability complaints allege that the design of the Bair Hugger forced-air warming system allows bacteria from the operating room floor to be blown into the surgical wound, increasing the patient’s risk of infection possibly requiring revision surgery.

3M, Arizant Accused of Failure to Warn

Although several studies published in recent years have questioned the safety of the Bair Hugger blanket, plaintiffs allege that 3M and Arizant continue to defend the safety of the warming system, providing false and misleading information to medical professionals. “Rather than alter the design of their product or warn physicians of the dangers associated with the Bair Hugger, as numerous studies confirm, the Defendants have chosen to ‘double down’ on their efforts to promote their defective product,” Young states in his Bair Hugger complaint. Even the original creator of the Bair Hugger blanket, Dr. Scott Augustine, has gone public with concerns about the safety of the patient warming device, yet 3M and Arizant call his efforts to warn the public “baseless,” and claim that they “stem from a personal vendetta.”

Contact an Experienced Bair Hugger Attorney Today

There are currently about 100 deep joint infection lawsuits pending in the Bair Hugger multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is being overseen by U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen in the District of Minnesota, and additional complaints are expected to be filed as lawyers continue to review and file claims for individuals who have suffered deep joint infections and other side effects allegedly caused by the Bair Hugger blanket. If you believe you have been harmed by Bair Hugger side effects like a deep joint infection, sepsis or MRSA, contact a knowledgeable product liability lawyer today to discuss your possible compensation options.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 866-308-1092 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.

Power Morcellator Upstaged Woman’s Uterine Cancer, Lawsuit Alleges

Power Morcellators May Cause Spread of Cancer

According to Babette Davis’ claim, she underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy in November 2008, during which Ethicon’s Gynecare power morcellator was used to cut up and remove her uterus through a small incision in the abdomen. A biopsy of the removed tissue was found to contain leiomyosarcoma cancer cells, which doctors were unable to detect prior to the surgery, and Davis alleges in her lawsuit that power morcellation caused a rapid dissemination of the aggressive uterine cancer. As a result of the leiomyosarcoma cancer being spread throughout her body, Davis underwent multiple cycles of chemotherapy, but the following year, it was discovered that the cancer had spread when three large masses were detected in her abdomen and pelvis.

Possible Side Effects of Power Morcellators

Power morcellators have become a popular method for cutting up and removing uterine fibroids, used by hospitals and doctors across the country during hysterectomy and myomectomy procedures. However, serious concerns have been raised recently about the potential for power morcellation to significantly upstage undiagnosed uterine cancer by spreading cancerous tissue throughout the body. In Davis’ case, “Plaintiff continues to suffer from abdominal pain, weakness, fatigue and takes oral chemotherapy to treat the life-threatening cancer that use of Defendant’s Gynecare Laparoscopic Power Morcellator caused to disseminate in her body. Had the Laparoscopic Power Morcellator used on Plaintiff not disseminated her leiomyosarcoma, Plaintiff would not have suffered and continued to suffer these symptoms.”

Power Morcellator Warnings from the FDA

In November 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication warning that, “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 long-term survival.” In light of this serious risk, the FDA at that time advised against “the use of laparoscopic power morcellators in the majority of women undergoing myomectomy or hysterectomy for treatment of fibroids.” According to the FDA, approximately one in 350 women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy procedures have unsuspected uterine sarcoma, and there is currently no reliable method for detecting this cancer prior to surgery.

Pursuing Compensation for Power Morcellation Injuries

Babette Davis’ claim joins a growing number of product liability lawsuits filed over alleged side effects of power morcellators, and all of the complaints involve similar allegations that the makers of power morcellator devices failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential for power morcellation to spread cancerous tissues throughout the body during surgery. In October 2015, all power morcellation lawsuits pending in the federal court system were centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil in the District of Kansas. If you underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy or myomectomy procedure where power morcellation was used, and you have since been diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma cancer, consult an experienced product liability lawyer today to discuss filing a claim against the device manufacturing company.

There is no risk to you in consulting one of our lawyers today. Contact Monroe Law Group now by phone at 866-308-1092 or by email at intake@monroelawgroup.com to arrange for your free, no-obligation consultation.