medical supplies

Published on: March 19, 2017

Drones Could Play a Critical Role in Post-Accident Emergency Care

In the future, drones carrying blood products and medical supplies could prove to be an integral part of emergency and critical care after an accident.

The first few hours after any car or truck wreck are critical for a victim. In fact, in severe accidents, the first hour after the event is extremely crucial, and is often referred to as the “golden hour.” It is during this time that the quality and speed of care delivered to the victim really matters. Delays in receiving emergency medical care during this important time could mean the difference between life and death for injured victims.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that drones can be used effectively to transport large bags of blood products to accident sites and other areas where such critical measures are needed. The cooler technology used in the study was able to maintain the proper temperature of the products.

Published on: October 12, 2011

FDA Likely to Declare Surgical Mesh Devices as High-Risk Because of Injury Hazards – Product Liability Claims Likely

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Under pressure from consumer safety advocates and product liability attorneys, the Food and Drug Administration is likely to soon limit access to surgical mesh devices because of the high risk of personal injury and complications resulting from the use of these. The Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that it will soon review the safety of the devices, which are used to treat pelvic organ prolapse in women.In this condition, the uterus and other organs shift from their position, and protrude through the body.The condition is frequently seen in women after childbirth.A surgical mesh device is used to keep the protruding organs in place.These devices are implanted transvaginally.

However, the Food and Drug Administration has been aware of complaints involving complications in women who had been implanted with surgical mesh products, for a while now.According to the Food and Drug Administration, between January 2008 and December 2010, it received more than 1,500 complaints of complications associated with the use of surgical mesh products.In July, the agency issued a safety warning about the products.Most of the complaints alleged chronic pain after the insertion of the surgical mesh.Women have also reported complaints about painful sexual intercourse.

What has seemed really outrageous to Atlanta product liability attorneys is that many women, who have had these surgical mesh products implanted and now face chronic and consistent pain, could have been treated even without the use of these devices.Doctors now believe that an unknown number of women may have had surgical mesh produces implanted to treat pelvic organ prolapse, when there are noninvasive techniques that can help treat the condition. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration believes that the use of surgical mesh product exposes patients to more severe injury risks, compared to traditional non-mesh repairs.The increased risk from the use of the surgical mesh does not translate into higher benefits for these patients.The Food and Drug Administration says that it has not seen any evidence to indicate that the use of the surgical mesh treats the condition any better than non-mesh procedures.

Published on: June 9, 2009

Bausch and Lomb Settles Hundreds of Eye Infection Lawsuits

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

After Bausch & Lomb Inc. went private in 2007, the contact lens maker conducted a quiet recall of its ReNu with MoistureLoc solutions, without much fuss and away from the public glare.

As it now turns out, the company also quietly settled nearly 600 product liability lawsuits brought against it by contact lens wearers across the country, who contracted a fungal eye infection called Fusarium Keritatis. These persons claimed that the infection, which left some of them with permanent eye damage, was the result of using the ReNu with MoistureLoc multi purpose solution. Fusarium Keratitis is an extremely rare infection which means that when these cases of infection began to show up in 2005, ophthalmologists were not able to diagnose the infection correctly and treat it properly. As the result, 60 people suffered enough eye damage to require a cornea transplant, and at least 7 people lost an eye.

Several of these injured users have had their lives impacted dramatically by the infection. One race car driver in Colorado had to give up his passion for racing after he suffered severe eye damage. A Broadway actress who suffered scarring in her eye was also one of those who filed a product liability lawsuit against the company.

Published on: March 6, 2009

Democratic Lawmakers Introducing Legislation to Overturn Immunity for Medical Device Companies

by Robert N. Katz, Esq.

Democratic lawmakers are planning to introduce legislation that would overturn a Supreme Court decision in February 2008 barring injured patients from suing a medical device company if the device had already received Food and Drug Administration FDA approval. In effect, the legislation promises to return patients their right to sue medical device makers for injuries sustained after using their products.

In February 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that injured patients or their survivors could not sue companies that manufactured medical devices that had FDA approval. Since the ruling was passed, judges around the country have thrown out several hundreds of lawsuits that were filed by patients and their families against manufacturers of defective medical devices. Now Henry A Waxman, Democrat from California and Frank Pallone Junior Democrat from New Jersey, have plans to introduce legislation that would overturn the Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court ruling was based on the premise that approval by the FDA took preemption or precedence over product liability laws in individual states. Judges around the country have cited the Supreme Court decision as the reason for their dismissal of several medical device product liability lawsuits.

Since the Supreme Court ruling was passed, Atlanta product liability attorneys, pharmaceutical injury experts and patients’ advocates have been vocal in their opposition to the law which essentially cuts off individual rights to justice in the event of an injury. It is important to understand how serious some of these injuries are. Defective Medtronic defibrillators have resulted in a massive shock being delivered to patients’ heart, and there have been other serious injuries including burning and scarring injuries caused by malfunctioning joints and other devices. These injured victims used devices that were approved by the FDA, but can hope for little justice as long as the Supreme Court decision rules. The FDA has time and again failed in its duty to make sure that medical devices entering the market are free of defects. It has severe critics both within and outside the organization who are concerned about botched approval procedures, and even corruption at the agency. If the new Democrat-sponsored legislation passes, patients can hope for justice again.