Articles Posted in Product Liability

by

Radiation therapy is a common treatment for a large range of cancers and has been responsible for saving, or at least extending, many peoples’ lives. However, the basic premise of radiation therapy involves targeting and killing cancerous cells in one’s body. And while properly administered radiation therapy can save lives, when hospitals and doctors administer too much radiation it can result in negative effects for the treating patient.

Overdoses of radiation is becoming more and more widespread amongst cancer patients. A recent report of Evanston’s Northshore University HealthSystem, a Chicago-area hospital, provided one such example. A 50 year-old mother of three was administered dangerously high doses of radiation when the hospital staff made radiology errors involving the administration of her radiation doses. The young Illinois resident went from an active, vibrant person pre-radiation to a virtual invalid post-radiation and now resides in an Illinois nursing home.

This woman was just one of three oncology patients who received an overdose of radiation at Evanston Hospital. All three instances of the radiation errors were allegedly the result of faulty linear particle accelerators. These accelerators are used to focus the radiation on the cancerous cells and are commonly used for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

Continue reading

by

Federal preemption of medical device liability lawsuits has been a volatile issue in recent years, with the courts typically preempting product liability lawsuits citing violations of individual state safety standards. However, in Bausch v. Stryker Corporation, et al., No. 09-3434, the issue was whether a product defect claim citing federal safety standard violations was also preempted by that product having federal approval. While a Chicago federal district court had dismissed Ms. Bausch’s claim, that decision was recently overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That Court of Appeals decision permitted Mr. Bausch to pursue his claim in federal court.

The case facts of the Bausch medical device lawsuit involve a hip replacement 56 year-old Margaret Bausch underwent, during which she received a Trident brand ceramic-on-ceramic hip replacement system manufactured by Stryker Corporation. The prosthetic hip device ended up failing and required an additional surgery to have it removed.
The specific type of prosthetic hip Ms. Bausch received was approved for sale in the U.S. by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but was later recalled due to a failure to comply with federal standards. In her Chicago medical device lawsuit, Bausch’s attorneys cited Stryker’s failure to comply with federal standards during the manufacturing process of its prosthetic hip devices.

Continue reading

by

A whistle-blower lawsuit filed against Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center was recently unsealed, allowing the Chicago public a glimpse of the case facts. Goldberg, M.D. v. Rush University Medical Center, et al. was brought by orthopedic surgeon Robert Goldberg, M.D. against his employer, Rush University Medical Center, and fellow surgeons alleging that the orthopedic department routinely overbooked its operating rooms and violated Medicare billing rules.

Goldberg alleges that Rush’s orthopedic center operated as a business that emphasized quantity over quality, a claim that is supported by further allegations that the during 2004 and 2005 the orthopedic center regularly overbooked its operating rooms and relied heavily on its residents to perform surgeries. The assumption is that by overbooking these rooms the surgical center’s patients were at a heightened risk for surgical errors and potential medical malpractice.

According to Medicare billing rules teaching surgeons, like the six surgeons named in this lawsuit, are required to be present in the operating room during key portions of the procedures. The case was filed as a whistle-blower lawsuit because Medicare is a federal institution, and as such falls under the federal government’s umbrella. A whistle-blower claim is one in which the government has been victimized, such as by falsifying federal billing records.

Continue reading

by

Whether or not you have children, most people are familiar with warning labels on children’s toys. These warning labels could include anything from lead content in painted toys, choking hazards from small parts, or potential injuries from sharp objects. Yet while there are ample warnings for children’s toys, there are no warning labels itemizing the dangers to children from eating certain foods.

We typically don’t think of food as being dangerous to children, yet one horrific episode involves a 23 month-old child who died after a piece of popcorn she was eating became lodged in her lung and bronchial tubes. Her parents, like the majority of the general public, had no idea that popcorn was unsafe for their 2 year-old.

In an effort to increase awareness and prevent the recurrence of episodes like the one described, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is advocating for food warning labels. The AAP, based out of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, is one of the nation’s leading pediatric groups. It is lobbying for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require warning labels on foods that are known choking hazards.

According to a 2008 study, the ten foods that pose the highest choking hazards for young children are hot dogs, peanuts, carrots, boned chicken, candy, meat, popcorn, fish with bones, sunflower seeds and apples.

Continue reading