Scope Infection Lawsuit Patients across the United States have filed medical scope infection lawsuits after contaminated endoscopes and duodenoscopes allegedly transmitted dangerous bacterial infections during procedures such as ERCP, colonoscopy, and other endoscopic treatments.
Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits allege that implanted pain devices malfunctioned, migrated, or caused nerve damage, often forcing patients to undergo revision or removal surgery.
Depo-Provera Lawsuit Depo-Provera lawsuits are being investigated for women who developed meningioma brain tumors after receiving Depo-Provera birth control shots, claiming that Pfizer failed to adequately disclose side effects.
Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuit Lawsuits are being pursued by users of Suboxone who experienced tooth loss, broken teeth or required dental extractions. Settlement benefits may be available.
Chlorpyrifos Parkinsonโs Disease Lawsuit Chlorpyrifos lawsuits are being investigated for individuals diagnosed with Parkinsonโs disease after direct, residential, occupational or Gulf War pesticide exposure.
Ozempic Lawsuit Lawyers are pursuing Ozempic lawsuits, Wegovy lawsuits and Mounjaro lawsuits over gastroparesis or stomach paralysis, which can leave users with long-term gastrointestinal side effects
Hair Relaxer Lawsuit Regular exposure to chemicals in hair relaxer may cause uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries. Women diagnosed with cancer may be eligible for settlement benefits.
Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Serious and life-threatening injuries have been linked to problems with Bard PowerPort. Lawsuits are now being pursued by individuals who suffered injuries from the implantable port catheter fracturing or migrating.
Nitrous Oxide Lawsuit Individuals who suffered harm, or families who lost a loved one after using nitrous oxide products may be eligible for financial compensation through a nitrous oxide lawsuit.
Breast Mesh Lawsuit Lawyers are investigating breast mesh lawsuits for women who suffered infections, pain, or implant failure from internal bra implants used in breast reconstruction surgery.
FDA to Hold Public Hearings on Medical Device Approval Process February 1, 2010 AboutLawsuits Add Your CommentsThe FDA has scheduled a public meeting for late this month to review review the controversial process used to swiftly approve medical devices, which some say has been overused and allowed dangerous devices to be implanted in patients.According to a statement released last week, the FDA scheduled a public meeting for February 18. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss challenges facing the agencyโs pre-market notification process, also known as the 510(k) process, which allows quick approval of medical devices if they can be shown to be substantially similar to products already on the market. Critics and studies have suggested that the FDA leans too heavily on the process for quick medical device approval, which has led to dangerous and, in some cases, deadly medical devices onto the market.The meeting will include open comment sessions on issues involving previously approved devices, new technology and scientific evidence, FDA practices in the face of high volumes of submissions, and post-market surveillance.Do You Know about…Spinal Cord Stimulator lawsuitsSpinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being investigated for individuals who suffered unnecessary shocks, burns or other problems, often resulting in the need for additional surgery to remove the SCS.Learn MoreSEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATIONDo You Know AboutโฆSpinal Cord Stimulator lawsuitsSpinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being investigated for individuals who suffered unnecessary shocks, burns or other problems, often resulting in the need for additional surgery to remove the SCS.Learn MoreSEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR COMPENSATIONThe hearings come after the release of several studies that have been highly critical of FDAโs ability to adequately investigate medical devices to ensure that they are safe for use in consumers. Two studies, published late last year, found that the FDA does not require enough clinical trials and that it often accepts suspect data at face value.One study, conducted by researchers from the University of California and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that two thirds of approved devices only went through one clinical trial before being unleashed on the market, and most of those trials involved less than 300 subjects. The other study, conducted by researchers from the FDA and Bostonโs Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and published in the American Journal of Therapeutics, indicated that about 40% of the studies used to decide what devices are approved lack clear definitions of safety requirements.In addition, a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released in June found significant shortcomings and a heavy reliance on the 510(k) process. The GAO report identifies gaps in the FDA reviewing process, deficiencies in the agencyโs postmarket surveillance, and also found that FDA has not kept up with regular inspections of medical device manufacturing facilities. Many devices which should be put through the more stringent premarket approval process are put through the premarket notification process instead, the GAO found.The meetings also come as Congress ponders what to do about a 2008 Supreme Court decision in Riegel vs. Medtronic, which determined held that the FDA approval of a medical device can make manufacturers immune from product liability lawsuits for injuries caused by the defective design of their devices. Legislation called the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 was introduced last year to overturn that decision, but there has been no action on the bill since hearings this summer.As a consequence of the Supreme Court decision, thousands of pending medical device lawsuits have been dismissed, including cases filed on behalf of thousands of patients injured by the recalled Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead.A Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead recall was issued on October 15, 2007, after it was discovered that the small wires used to connect defibrillators to the heart was prone to fracture or break. Although the defective design has caused hundreds of people to suffer unnecessary shocks or caused their defibrillator to fail when it was needed to deliver a life-saving jolt, a federal judge ruled earlier this year that patient claims for medical expenses and other compensation are now barred because the FDA approved the design of the device.The meeting will be held on February 18 from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at the Hilton Washington, D.C./North Gaithersburg, in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Those wishing to attend the meeting or participate must register by 5 p.m. on February 12. The FDA will accept written or electronic comments until March 5, 2010. The meeting will be also webcast live at http://www.ConnectLive.com/events/fda021810. Tags: Medical Device, Product Liability, Sprint FidelisMore Lawsuit Stories Covidien ProGrip Mesh Lawsuit Scheduled for March 2027 Jury Trial October 6, 2026 Lawsuit Alleges FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus, iLet Insulin Pump Device Failures Caused Death October 6, 2026 Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Reached Before Bellwether Trial Begins October 6, 2026 1 Comments Peter February 9, 2010 If Congress does not act to overturn the Supreme Court ruling, I suggest that the following warning be read and handed to every potential recipient of a Class lll device. Medical Device Warning Label For All Class III Medical Devices This warning label is to advise you of potential risks associated with the use of Class III Medical Devices. The Medical Device Act of 1974 gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to license and approve medical devices. Therefore, this device has been approved for general use by the FDA. Be aware, however, that the United States Congress as well as many experts familiar with the agency have stated on the record that the FDA is both underfunded and understaffed, and therefore may not have had the capacity adequately to verify all safety risks associated with this device. Also, be advised that this device has not been tested on large numbers of patients, and that it is a fact that a certain percentage of this type of device will malfunction or fail, with the potential to cause you great pain and suffering, and maybe even death. At the very least, you may need to undergo significant and costly health care follow up services to correct the problems caused by the malfunctioning device. Also, please be advised that because of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, if this device fails or malfunctions, you will not be able to sue the manufacturer of the device, unless the manufacturer has violated FDA regulations during or after the approval process. This means that either your health insurance company, you, or your family will be responsible for all costs incurred to rectify the problems caused if the device fails or malfunctions. Finally, please be advised that manufacturers of medical devices are the only companies in the country which have been granted this type of immunity from tort action. Medical Device Warning Label For All Class III Medical Devices This warning label is to advise you of potential risks associated with the use of Class III Medical Devices. The Medical Device Act of 1974 gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to license and approve medical devices. Therefore, this device has been approved for general use by the FDA. Be aware, however, that the United States Congress as well as many experts familiar with the agency has stated on the record that the FDA is both underfunded and understaffed, and therefore may not have had the capacity adequately to verify all safety risks associated with this device. Also, be advised that this device has not been tested on large numbers of patients, and that it is a fact that a certain percentage of this type of device will malfunction or fail, with the potential to cause you great pain and suffering, and maybe even death. At the very least, you may need to undergo significant and costly health care follow up services to correct the problems caused by the malfunctioning device. Also, please be advised that because of a recent United States Supreme Court decision, if this device fails or malfunctions, you will not be able to sue the manufacturer of the device, unless the manufacturer has violated FDA regulations during or after the approval process. This means that either your health insurance company, you, or your family will be responsible for all costs incurred to rectify the problems caused if the device fails or malfunctions. Finally, please be advised that manufacturers of medical devices are the only companies in the country which have been granted this type of immunity from tort action. FacebookThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.Share Your CommentsFirst Name*Last NameEmail* Shared Comments*This field is hidden when viewing the formI authorize the above comments be posted on this page Yes NoPost Comment I authorize the above comments be posted on this pageWeekly Digest Opt-In Yes, send me a weekly email with the latest lawsuits, recalls and warnings.Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.Contact Phone #Alt Phone #Private CommentsNOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.CAPTCHAGA SourceGA CampaignGA MediumGA ContentGA TermΔ MORE TOP STORIES Covidien ProGrip Mesh Lawsuit Scheduled for March 2027 Jury Trial (Posted: today)A federal judge has selected the third claim to serve as a Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial, which will begin in March.MORE ABOUT: HERNIA MESH LAWSUITJudge Sets Next Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit for Trial in January 2027 (09/11/2026)Covidien Mesh Lawyers to Meet With MDL Judge This Week, Following Landmark Verdict (08/17/2026)Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Payout of $88M Awarded in First MDL Bellwether Trial (08/05/2026) Abbott and Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits Centralized in New Federal MDLs (Posted: yesterday)Federally filed lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Nevro over alleged spinal cord stimulator injuries have been consolidated into two separate multidistrict litigations in California and Illinois.MORE ABOUT: SPINAL CORD STIMULATOR LAWSUITSpinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Alleges Boston Scientific Device Failure Required Removal Surgery (09/29/2026)Nevro SCS Implant Lawsuit Alleges Sales Rep Programming Led to Permanent Nerve Damage (09/21/2026)Boston Scientific Spine Stimulator Lawsuit Filed Over Numbness, Incontinence, Erectile Dysfunction (09/16/2026) Judge Clears Bard PowerPort Lawsuit for Trial, Rejecting Motion for Summary Judgment (Posted: 4 days ago)A U.S. District Judge refused to dismiss a Bard PowerPort lawsuit just two weeks before it is supposed to go to trial, saying the manufacturer will have to convince a jury with their arguments and not him.MORE ABOUT: BARD POWERPORT LAWSUITBard PowerPort Infection Lawsuit Set for Third Bellwether Trial to Begin Oct. 13 (09/14/2026)Jury Awards $40M Port Catheter Lawsuit Payout in Bard PowerPort Bellwether Trial (09/09/2026)Nearly 4,000 Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Are Awaiting Outcome of Upcoming Bellwether Trials (08/12/2026)
Lawsuit Alleges FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus, iLet Insulin Pump Device Failures Caused Death October 6, 2026
Covidien ProGrip Mesh Lawsuit Scheduled for March 2027 Jury Trial (Posted: today)A federal judge has selected the third claim to serve as a Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial, which will begin in March.MORE ABOUT: HERNIA MESH LAWSUITJudge Sets Next Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit for Trial in January 2027 (09/11/2026)Covidien Mesh Lawyers to Meet With MDL Judge This Week, Following Landmark Verdict (08/17/2026)Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Payout of $88M Awarded in First MDL Bellwether Trial (08/05/2026)
Abbott and Nevro Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits Centralized in New Federal MDLs (Posted: yesterday)Federally filed lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Nevro over alleged spinal cord stimulator injuries have been consolidated into two separate multidistrict litigations in California and Illinois.MORE ABOUT: SPINAL CORD STIMULATOR LAWSUITSpinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuit Alleges Boston Scientific Device Failure Required Removal Surgery (09/29/2026)Nevro SCS Implant Lawsuit Alleges Sales Rep Programming Led to Permanent Nerve Damage (09/21/2026)Boston Scientific Spine Stimulator Lawsuit Filed Over Numbness, Incontinence, Erectile Dysfunction (09/16/2026)
Judge Clears Bard PowerPort Lawsuit for Trial, Rejecting Motion for Summary Judgment (Posted: 4 days ago)A U.S. District Judge refused to dismiss a Bard PowerPort lawsuit just two weeks before it is supposed to go to trial, saying the manufacturer will have to convince a jury with their arguments and not him.MORE ABOUT: BARD POWERPORT LAWSUITBard PowerPort Infection Lawsuit Set for Third Bellwether Trial to Begin Oct. 13 (09/14/2026)Jury Awards $40M Port Catheter Lawsuit Payout in Bard PowerPort Bellwether Trial (09/09/2026)Nearly 4,000 Bard PowerPort Lawsuits Are Awaiting Outcome of Upcoming Bellwether Trials (08/12/2026)