Stryker Hip Settlements in New Jersey

Four Stryker Hip Settlements in New Jersey, Attorneys Continue to Mediate Cases

Last week, attorneys negotiated Stryker Hip settlements on four cases that were filed in New Jersey State Court. The cases were among six that were chosen by both parties and by New Jersey Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti. Negotiations on the other two cases “fell through,” according to reports.

Although the Stryker Hip settlement amounts remain confidential, this news is very encouraging for other plaintiffs involved in the litigation. Attorneys continue to mediate a select few cases as the New Jersey Court permits.

However, it is very important to remember that this is only the beginning stage of negotiations. Over a thousand cases have been filed throughout the country. Litigation of this size often progresses very slowly. Even after a case reaches a settlement, it can take years until funds are distributed.

Currently, there are two main consolidated actions throughout the country. Approximately half of the cases are filed the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is centralized in Minnesota under Judge Frank.  Over five hundred more are filed in the New Jersey multi-county litigation in state court, under Judge Brian Martinotti. About 100 more are filed in various other venues throughout the country.

We will continue to post updates regarding Stryker hip settlements. If you have a recalled Stryker ABG II or Rejuvenate hip and have not yet spoken with an attorney, it is important to do so as soon as possible. Contact us for a free consultation.

Warning: DePuy Lawsuit Funding Sites May Mirror Official Settlement Site

The recently-announced DePuy settlement has gathered plenty of media attention, which has generated many questions regarding DePuy lawsuit funding. No matter how well-executed or -organized a settlement announcement may be, there will still be a decent amount of confusion and/or misinformation as the word rapidly spreads. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of rogue websites and soliciting companies that are ready to capitalize on claimants’ confusion. It is very important for DePuy ASR claimants  to be aware of some of the practices that companies may use in order to involve themselves in the litigation and/or distribution processes.

Here are some things to consider if you are contacted regarding DePuy lawsuit funding:

1.)    Be careful who you give your information to. Lead counsel in the DePuy ASR litigation has already warned that rogue DePuy lawsuit funding and structure websites may pop up and intentionally look very similar to the official site. If you have an attorney, he or she will address all that needs to be done on the official DePuy settlement site.

2.)    Be wary of any parties, other than your attorney, who contact you directly regarding settlement. If anyone other than your attorney/his or her legal assistant asks you questions regarding your case, it is best that you politely decline to answer any questions and give them the number to your attorney’s office.

3.)    If you are considering accepting advanced settlement funding, we strongly encourage you to seek the advice of your attorney first. Legal funding (loan) companies often charge excessive interest rates. The temptation to get your money sooner is understandable. However, GoldenbergLaw (along with many other firms) rarely recommends accepting these types of loans.  Often, the interest can accrue to the point where all of (or even more than) your settlement amount is owed to the funding company.

4.)    Any concerns about DePuy lawsuit funding should be directed to your own attorney, as they are the most familiar with the specifics of your case. There have already been complaints of internet advertisers or direct solicitors (who usually do not work for a law firm but hope to sell your information to one) who are trying to get people to switch firms. Often, the solicitors will try to convince you to switch by making false claims, such as guaranteeing they can get your claim settled faster, for more money, etc. The settlement will have pre-arranged methods for distribution of funds;  no firm will receive special treatment. Some solicitors will say almost anything to get you to agree to give your information to them.

These practices are an unfortunate byproduct of highly-publicized settlements, and by warning against them early we hope to minimize the impact they have. If you have any questions about DePuy lawsuit funding or do not currently have an attorney, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Most Metal-on-Metal Hips Banned in United Kingdom

Almost all metal-on-metal hips have unacceptably high failure rates, according to UK regulators:

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) has recently decided to ban most metal-on-metal hips in UK hospitals. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the non-departmental public body that publishes guidelines for the use of health technologies within the NHS, made the recommendation to do so based on an audit of all hip surgery in England and other parts of the UK.

According to The Telegraph, NICE advised the NHS to discontinue use of all hip devices that have failed at rates higher than 5% after five years. According to NICE, the new standard will preclude future use of most metal-on-metal hips, as almost all of them failed at rates higher than that.

Metal-on-metal hips banned in UK

Photo Cred: The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10406198/NHS-hospitals-to-be-banned-from-fitting-metal-on-metal-hip-replacements-after-high-failure-rate.html

According to the report, even metal-on-metal resurfacing procedures had unacceptably high failure rates. Resurfacing hip replacements include the Adept, Durom, Recap Magnum, Conserve Plus and Cormet 2000.

Only two metal-on-metal hips managed to meet the new standards. According to The Telegraph, those devices’ failure rates were still considerably higher than those of traditional implants. Predictably, the DePuy ASR had a particularly high failure rate, which was estimated to be as high as 43% after nine years.

Although the United States has not taken the same measures, many surgeons have stopped using metal-on-metal hips of their own accord. Many manufacturers have discontinued or recalled their metal-on-metal devices, although they do not readily cite problems with metal-on-metal hips as reasons for doing so.

The age of manufacturers profiting off of these dangerous devices may be ending, but thousands of people have been left with the consequences. Many recipients have already undergone dangerous revision surgeries, and many more are left wondering if they will need to do so within the next few years.

If you believe you or a loved one are experiencing problems due to a metal-on-metal hip device, contact our office for a free consultation.