Knee Replacements and Hospital-Acquired Infections

Should you get a total knee replacement?

This question is officially bouncing off walls and echoing down halls in doctor offices’ across America.

Total knee replacement (TKR) surgeries are higher than ever and ever increasing, landing over 700,000 patients in 2010 (the most recent reported year by the CDC) and expected to grow almost 700 percent by 2030 to 3.5 million TKRs.

But should this be alarming? Baby boomers are now grandparents, surgeons are more comfortable with the operation, and their success rates are equivocally skyrocketing. Plus there’s this classic response: Americans are fat.However, weight only accounts for a quarter of the rise in TKRs, according to the Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research. The study also cites earlier diagnosis of osteoarthritis, consumer’s increased exposure to artificial joints, and a rise in surgeons’ recommendations as major factors. TKRs were considered a drastic measure or last resort in the 1980s when they first hit operating tables; today that’s just not the case.

And that’s fine; after all there is no current treatment to slow osteoarthritis, only ways to momentarily deter the pain like with medications or limiting intense activities. However, there are some areas for concern.

While TKRs themselves may help most individuals relieve pain (until they need a replacement, which is not good news for younger individuals selecting the operation) they of course, carry some serious risks which may not be adequately explained to all patients- though not on purpose.

National knee replacement infection lawyer Brian White and advocate for safer surgery procedures closely follows the rates of hospital-acquired infections (HAI), or infections contracted by patients through hospital care while in the hospital for an unrelated issue. There are five main types of HAIs, but the most common are surgical site infections.

“While many procedures – routine and difficult alike- are completed without a hitch, other peopler are seriously injured or even killed as a result of complications during or after surgery.” White writes on his site. “These injuries take a significant physical and financial toll.”

While the physical suffering is a given following many surgeries and subsequent infections, the mentioned financial burden is no exaggeration. Just check out the statistics in this infographic below, made in conjunction with 1 Point 21 Interactive.

Cost of HAIs

More unsettling, one in 25 patients will contract an HAI during their hospital stay. The CDC is now monitoring this rate and just released the annual report for 2015- unfortunately, the one in 25 patients remained unchanged.

This is all worth mentioning because of a study conducted by Health Affairs in Washington state. The researches implemented what they called “decision aids” into a large Seattle-based heath care system. The aids were designed for patients considering total knee and hip replacement surgeries (also on the rise, though not as drastically). The materials included a video and a brochure detailing pros and cons of the operation and interviews from patients who opted in and those who decided on other less permanent treatments. The results? The decision aids led to 38 and 26 percent fewer TKRs and total hip replacements, respectively, over six months. Added bonus- the decline in surgeries significantly lowered costs for the health care system.

This study is from 2012. Here’s what I’d like to know today: how many are happy with their decision to opt in or out; how many who opted out have now had a TKR; how many had complications with their surgery? Though I’m no researcher or even a proficient data analyzer, it seems the decline indicates patient’s better understood the pros and cons after going through the provided material. And it’s quite possible many have now had a TKR, to which I’d say is also fine. They are a helpful and important surgery, it’s just choosing the right time to get the operation that seems to be slipping away.

Paxil Birth Defect Lawsuit Ousted to Minnesota

A federal judge ruled that Julie Geddeck, a mother who claims that taking the antidepressant drug Paxil resulted in her unborn daughter developing a critical neural tube defect that required major surgery, must fight the Pharmaceutical conglomerate GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in Minnesota

Guddeck, a resident of Minnesota sued GSK in Philadelphia County’s Court of Common Pleas back in September 2011.  Guddeck’s claim was that during her pregnancy she took the antidepressant Paxil which gave her then unborn daughter, Kaylea Geddeck, the critical neural tube defect. Kaylea has since required major surgeries and continuous treatment for the defect.

Guddeck’s suit is claiming negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability on GSK’s part. Her suit was taken from the federal courts and consolidated with other Paxil lawsuits against the Pennsylvania company.  Many plaintiffs moved to remand and in December 2011 an U.S. district judge granted the motions based on the grounds that GSK was “Pennsylvania citizen and that removal by an in-state defendant was improper,” however, it was later discovered that GSK was a citizen of Delaware and the removal was proper. Guddecks suit was removed again to Federal Court.

After the family was refused to remand the suit to state court, GSK moved to have the case transferred to Minnesota, which was approved on the grounds that the public and private factors were overwhelmingly in favor of a transfer.

It makes sense for the case to proceed in Minnesota, since Guddeck is a MN resident, GSK failed to warn her in MN, guddeck became pregnant there, was prescribed the drug there, took the antidepressant there and gave birth to her daughter there. Kaylea’s treatment has all been in MN and she continues to receive treatment there.

Paxil was first approved in 1992 but quickly faced suits in NY for withholding safety data about the drug. In 2005 the FDA issued an alert to health care professionals warning that individuals who took Paxil were at an increased risk of birth defects. Paxil is extremely risky for women in their first three months of their pregnancy.


Charite Spinal Disc Lawsuits

Have you been a victim of Charite spinal disc injury?

If you are looking for a lawyer to handle your Charite spinal disc case, you are not alone. Many people have been seriously harmed after receiving the artificial disc. Johnson & Johnson developed Charité, the 1st artificial spinal disc in the U.S., which was created to stop persistent back pain for people with degenerative disc disease and aid people with serious back problems in normal movement. The cost? $11,500 with an additional $50,000 for the implantation surgery. However, it’s not a sure fix by any stretch of the imagination. The success rate is just over 50%. In addition, many complications can occur with this disc replacement surgery including paralysis, the need for additional surgery or even death. The product was only tested with around 300 patients over a 2 year period so critics of this device are anticipating many more injuries and lawsuits in the years to come.

So far there are many patients who are reporting to have equal or even more back pain then before the surgical implant. There are also complaints that they were not warned about the success rate of the surgical implant.

Charite Disc Lawsuits

In the past five years, dozens of people have filed lawsuits for a failed Charite disc surgery. If you are one of unlucky victims of a failed Charite disc implant surgery, your best option is to find a Charite spinal disc attorney (a product liability attorney) who is experienced in handling Charite disc lawsuits.

Approved uses of the Charite Spinal Disc include degenerative knees, degenerative hips and for degenerative disc disease but many complications can occur including:

  • Increase in pain levels
  • Leg complications
  • Joint degeneration
  • Revision surgery
  • Back Pain
  • Implants that break or loosen
  • Paralysis
  • Intestinal problems
  • Leakage of spinal fluid
  • Nerve damage


Get your free consultation here and find out if you have a case.


Nap Nanny Product Implicated In Deaths Of Five Infants

Chicago, IL –A portable baby recliner called the Nap Nanny has been implicated in the deaths of five infants.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission has filed an administrative complaint contending that the Nap Nanny poses a substantial risk of injury and death to infants.  The Nap Nanny is made by Baby Matters LLC located in Berwyn, PA.  The commission wants the company to notify the public about the defects of the product and to give consumers a full refund.  The company, which went out of business a month ago, claims that no babies have been injured when the recliners were used properly.  Some parents have put the recliners in the crib which the company said not to do.  The recliner is meant to be used on the floor with the harness secure.  The first two versions of the foam recliner were recalled in July 2010 when the agency was aware of one death and 22 reports of infants hanging out or falling over the side of the Nap Nanny even though most of the infants had been placed in the recliner’s harness. Since then, the agency has learned of 4 more deaths. Four are linked to the first versions of the recliner, and one to the newer model.  There have been 5,000 Nap Nanny Generation Ones sold and 50,000 Generation Two.  There have been 100,000 of the newest model sold since January 2011.  If you have an infant who has been injured using this product, contact a Chicago product liability lawyer to review your case.

Those We Trust Lying

How do you make $800 million in one year with a product known to cause uncontrolled bone growth, ectopic bone growth, paralysis, cancer, male sterility, trouble breathing and difficulty speaking? You leave that part out.

In 2002, the FDA approved a liquid bioengineered Bone Morphogenic Protein, commonly referred to as the Medtronic inFUSE Bone Graft, as an alternative to the typical bone graft surgical process which requires two surgeries (one to remove graft from some part of the body and another to place it in the necessary spot). The Medtronic company got the Medtronic inFUSE Bone Graft approved for anterior approach to lumbar or spine fusion only, but in an attempt to broaden their market base beyond such restrictions, they began proposing their product for use on other parts of the spine.

There are many products utilized by doctors outside of FDA approval which do not amount to any illegal or fraudulent practices. In fact, it is common for doctors to do so in what is known as “off-label” use with some reports stating as many as one in five prescriptions in the US being “off-label” prescribed. The unlawful actions, thus, begin when companies, in this case Medtronic, promote their product for alternative use and ignore any laws that might forbid them to do so. What makes this case even more scandalous is the extent to which Medtronic disregarded these laws and the lengths they went to in promoting their Medtronic inFUSE Bone Graft for other uses.

Recently, the Senate has begun an investigation that, in its short amount of time, has already uncovered records indicating that Medtronic spent $210 million in trying to cover up these harmful side effects. Part of this amount can be accredited to four apparent doctors who received between $22 million and $34 million to testify to the bone graft’s effectiveness and to falsify reports, with the assistance of Medtronic, which failed to mention the fatal side effects from irregular use. In some cases, the Senate found doctors who would take it even a step further and urge other doctors to join the deceit by advising them not to publish their findings. The more and more documents the Senate investigates out of the thousands they subpoenaed, the more evident it becomes of just how much effort Medtronic put in to swaying public opinion in favor of a fatal device.

These findings from the Senate’s investigations could be just the smoke and gun victims need to attain compensation in their allegations. If you or someone you know has suffered from the malpractices of Medtronic, you are potentially in a position to fight back and write the wrongs that have been done to you. Get in touch with the attorneys at Estey Bomberger who are specialists in lawsuits against Medtronic Bone Grafts. They will relentlessly fight against the Medtronic organization to make sure that you receive the maximum compensation for this fatal injustice that took place.

Skechers Injury Lawsuit

A consumer fraud class-action Skechers lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Skechers Shape-Ups consumers who claim the misleading advertising of Skechers unfairly influenced their decisions to buy Skechers toning shoes that caused injuries.  This lawsuit seeks damages for these consumers who bought Skechers Shape-Ups with the idea that they would reward them with health benefits.  The truth is that these shoes provide zero additional health benefits and actually pose serious risks of injury due to the rocker bottom soles.  The grievance states that Skechers is being investigated for its marketing claims by the Federal Trade Commission.  It is estimated that Skechers will face a fine of $75 million for their false advertising claims.  Some of the most common types of Skechers injuries that these shoes cause are:

  • Skechers fall
  • Broken legs
  • Brain injuries
  • Ankle injuries
  • Back injuries
  • Hip dislocations
  • Torn ligaments
  • Children injuries

Estey & Bomberger is a nationally recognized law firms that represents consumers who have been injured by defective products like the Skechers Shape-Ups.  The Skechers injury lawyer at Estey & Bomberger have over 70 years of combined experience practicing personal injury law and handling a wide range of different dangerous product and product liability cases across the United States.  They have the skills, resources, and abilities to recover the maximum compensation for the individuals who have been injured by the design of the Skechers toning shoe products.  Their goal is to hold the negligent manufacturers, in this case Skechers, accountable for their consumers Skechers injuries.  These injury attorneys at Estey Bomberger have recover millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for the people who have suffered injuries as a result of these defective products.  Contact a Skechers lawyer at Estey & Bomberger for a free legal consultation if you or someone you love have been injured as a result of the Skechers Shape-Ups.

Skechers Injury

Toning Shoes Injuries

Skechers toning shoes or shape up shoes are a craze that has swept the nation in the past few years as Americans look for more ways to get into shape and integrate exercise into their every-day lives. Unfortunately, toning shoes injuries have also swept the nation, with many reports of injuries as a result of these “get in shape” shoes. Many Skechers injuries have been relatively minor, such as muscle pain in the legs and hips. However, some toning shoes injuries have included broken bones and even head injuries as a result of falls in these shoes. What is the real story behind toning shoes injuries?

Skechers Shape-ups are one of the more popular brands of toning shoes, thanks to the use of celebrity endorsements by television personality Kim Kardashian, hockey great Wayne Gretzky and others. The shoe received negative publicity in February 2011, when the Good Morning America program ran a consumer segment “Could ‘Toning Shoes’ Hurt Instead of Help?” The program featured a 38-year-old Ohio woman, Holly Ward, who alleged that five months of using Skechers Shape-ups at her job as a waitress and during exercise caused stress fractures in both of her hips. She has filed a personal injury lawsuit over her injuries.

Instructions for Use and Causes of Injuries

Unlike virtually every other piece of footwear on the market, toning shoes actually come with instructions for use. Toning shoes manufactuers say that you should only use the shoes for 25 to 45 minutes every day for the first two weeks. If you are coping well after two weeks, you can add 5 to 10 minutes every day. Some manufacturers have gone so far as to say that users should “stand up straight, keep their weight centered, place their feet parallel and hip-distance apart and walk at a comfortable pace, being sure to plant each heel firmly and roll forward on to the toes.”

These use instructions are unreasonably restrictive, and also contrary to the advertisements that toning shoes manufacturers use to sell their products. Most of the people who buy toning shoes wear them as they go about regular every-day activities, hoping to increase toning. And these people suffer injuries from falls and twisted ankles – just from using the shoes as footwear.  Estey & Bomberger is a personal injury law firm with experienced and successful toning shoe injury attorneys.  An experienced Skechers lawyer at Estey & Bomberger can help determine if you have a toning shoe injury case or not.

Common Toning Shoes Injuries

Skechers shape up injuries include a wide range of fractures, sprains and strains, such as:

  • Stress fractures in ankles, knees and legs;
  • Trimalleolar fractures;
  • Broken hips or legs;
  • Broken bones;
  • Broken ankles;
  • Ruptured Achilles tendons.

Skechers injuries also include other serious injuries that require surgery, and even head injuries and traumatic brain injuries as a result of Skechers falls while wearing these shoes. If you’ve been injured wearing toning shoes, you might have a viable personal injury case.  If this is the case do not hesitate to contact an experienced Skechers lawyer for a free legal consultation.  The injury lawyers at Estey & Bomberger, LLP have extensive experience handling toning shoe injury cases in all across the United States.

Yaz Lawsuits

Yaz packaging

Manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, Yaz (also known as Yasmine and Ocella) has quickly become one of the most popular and widely prescribed oral contraceptives on the market today.

Marketed as a “miracle drug” for birth control, the treatment of acne, premenstrual syndrome, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, Yaz has been prescribed to an estimated 12 million women in the U.S. and over 100 million women worldwide.

Recently, however, an increasing number of women have reported serious side effects, some even resulting in death. In fact, a Swiss media report claimed that over 200 reported deaths have been caused by Yaz and Yasmine combined.

Yaz contains the synthetic hormone drospirenone, which studies have shown to significantly increase the risk of blood clots in women. Other serious side effects linked to Yaz are heart attack, stroke, deep vein thrombosis, hypertension, pulmonary embolism, and gallbladder disease.

If you, or anyone you know, has taken Yaz and experienced any of these side effects, contact a Yaz lawsuit attorney.

FunFresh Foods Recalls Product Due To Possible E. Coli Contamination

San Clemente, CA — FunFresh Foods, Inc. has announced a recall of its 6-ounce packages of World Berries Organic Cacao Nibs because of possible E. Coli contamination.  About 500 packages are being recalled and 263 of those have already been removed from store shelves.  The product is sold mostly in health and natural food stores in a few states including California.  No illness have been reported so far, and if you bought the product you can return it for a full refund.  An investigation into the cause of the contamination is in progress.  The product that is being recalled has the UPC code of 632474929022, lot code 161104 and a use by date of April 14.  If you have eaten a product that has been contaminated and has made you sick, contact an Orange County personal injury lawyer to review your case.

Medtronic Bone Graft Lawsuit Lawyer

Minneapolis based Medtronic earlier this agreed to settle a lawsuit over their Infuse Bone Graft for $85 million dollars. The suit was brought about by investors who owned Medtronic shares between November 20, 2006 and November 17, 2008. The suit was filed because of the company making misleading statements concerning Infuse, which is a genetically engineered bone graft used in spinal surgery that has been heavily used off label, meaning not what it had been approved for by the FDA.

Infuse is a synthetic form of bone morphogenetic protein,  also called BMP. Ideally, the Infuse Bone Graft fills in gaps between a person’s vertebrae in order to replace disks that have been damaged. However, it has been heavily used off label and has caused people serious problems and has even led to death. The product is approved for use in a section of the lower spine but many physicians are using the this device in the neck or cervical area of the spinal chord and as a result, complications are arising. Nearly 300 reports have been filed in regards to side effects associated with Infuse. You can count on the number of Medtronic bone graft lawsuits rising in the near future.

Some of the Medtronic bone graft side effects include swelling of the neck, difficulty breathing, difficulty speaking and swallowing, airway compression, nerve damage and even death. These are incredibly scary side effects that are extremely serious. If you or a family member has had these kind of issues related to the Medtronic Infuse bone graft, speak to a lawyer familiar with these suits who can give you advice on your legal options. Medtronic generated over $800 million off Infuse in 2011, with over 85% coming from off label use. They have even admitted to paying a physician $800,000 to falsify study results for the Infuse bone graft. Once again, another company putting profits over the safety of people.