Never confuse a single defeat with a final
defeat.
~ F. Scott Fitzgerald
Re-examine all you have been told. Dismiss what insults your soul. Walt Whitman
Laws, like the spider’s web, catch the fly and let the hawk
go free.
Spanish Proverb
By BARRY MEIER April 16, 2013 The New York Times FiDA highlight
A jury in
Chicago rejected claims on Tuesday that the orthopedics unit of Johnson & Johnson inappropriately marketed
an artificial hip, which the company recalled in 2010.
The verdict came in the second trial of some 10,000 pending lawsuits
involving the all-metal device, which was known as the Articular Surface
Replacement, or A.S.R. In March, a jury in Los Angeles awarded $8.3 million in the first trial of an
A.S.R.-related case.
The DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson &
Johnson said in a statement that all its actions related to the sale, marketing
and recall of the device had been appropriate.
Internal
DePuy documents introduced at the trials indicated that company officials knew
that the design of the A.S.R. was flawed long before they recalled the device
and even considered redesigning the implant. They never shared that information
with doctors and patients, those documents show.
It was not
immediately clear why the two juries returned such differing verdicts.
Some lawyers and industry analysts have estimated
that the suits ultimately would cost Johnson & Johnson billions of dollars
to resolve. Thousands of the individual cases have been consolidated into a
large proceeding in a Federal District Court in Ohio and a resolution of that
action could provide a framework for settling the bulk of the cases and
determining awards to patients.
The A.S.R. belonged to a class of once widely
used hip replacements whose cup and ball components were both made of metal.
It was first sold by DePuy in 2003 outside the United States for use in
an alternative hip replacement procedure called resurfacing. Two years later,
DePuy started selling another version of the A.S.R. for use in the United
States in standard hip replacements that used the same cup component as the
resurfacing device.
No comments:
Post a Comment