Shoulder Surgery Pain Pump Lawsuits Filed in Arizona

Five new shoulder surgery pain pump lawsuits were filed last week in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, joining more than 100 other lawsuits filed throughout the country on behalf of individuals who have suffered debilitating loss of cartilage from the use of implantable pain control pumps after arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Although shoulder surgery pain pumps, like the ON-Q PainBuster made by I-Flow, Inc. and similar devices sold by Stryker Corp, DJ Orthopedics and other companies, were never approved to deliver pain medication directly into the shoulder joint following arthroscopic surgery, many doctors routinely used the devices in this manner instead of oral pain medications as a result of aggressive marketing by the manufacturers.

Also known as shoulder pain balls, the disposable infusion pumps were approved by the FDA in 1998 for use in soft tissue around the shoulder but not inside the shoulder joint.

The intra-articular use of the pumps to deliver medication directly into the shoulder joint has been linked the development of a condition known as Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis or PAGCL, which involves the deterioration of shoulder cartilage.

PAGCL, which is sometimes also referred to as shoulder chondrolysis, causes severe restrictions on range of motion, is very painful and may lead to a shoulder replacement surgery, since the cartilage damage can not be reversed.

Shoulder surgery pain pump lawsuits have been filed throughout the United States against the manufacturers of the devices and various makers of different anesthetics drugs used within them.

The Phoenix Business Journal reports that at least nine cases have been filed in Arizona federal court, including the five new cases filed last week and three filed last year.

In August 2008, a motion was filed with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate the litigation and centralize all of the shoulder pain ball lawsuits filed in various federal courts throughout the country before one judge. However, the MDL panel denied the motion, citing the large number of different manufacturers involved and different anesthetics used. Therefore, at this time, all of the roughly 100 lawsuits are proceeding individually through the court system.