As Morcellator Lawsuits Mount, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Comments on Insurer’s Stance Regarding Uterine Morcellation

The Firm is evaluating hysterectomy cancer lawsuits on behalf of women who experienced the spread of uterine sarcoma and other cancer, allegedly due to the use of a power morcellator during laparoscopic hysterectomy or fibroid removal.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friendRepost This
Free Case Review
A number of hysterectomy cancer lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts on behalf of women whose cancers were allegedly spread by power morcellators, and our Firm has heard from numerous women who claim to have suffered similar complications.

New York, New York (PRWEB) June 05, 2014

As morcellator lawsuits (http://www.gynecaremorcellatorlawsuit.com/) continue to be filed on behalf of women who allegedly experienced the spread of uterine cancers due to the use of power morcellators in gynecological surgeries, Bernstein Liebhard LLP notes that an insurance company recently weighed in on the controversy surrounding these devices. According to report published by The Pittsburgh Business Times on April 30th, Highmark, Inc., the largest health insurer based in Pennsylvania, will continue to pay for uterine morcellation until U.S. health regulators take further action on the issue. A spokesperson for the company told the Business Times that the decision to use a power morcellator in laparoscopic hysterectomy and fibroid removals should be “left to the physician’s discretion in patients best suited for it.” *

“A number of hysterectomy cancer lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts on behalf of women whose cancers were allegedly spread by power morcellators, and our Firm has heard from numerous women who claim to have suffered similar complications. It is important that women considering uterine morcellation be fully apprised of the procedure’s potential risks, as well as the fact that federal health regulators have specifically discouraged the use of morcellation in uterine surgery,” says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is now offering free hysterectomy cancer lawsuit reviews to women who suffered uterine sarcoma or other cancers allegedly spread by morcellation.

Hysterectomy Cancer Lawsuits
Concerns about power morcellators in uterine surgeries were ignited in April, when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert discouraging the use of uterine morcellation in women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy or fibroid removal. The FDA said it was concerned that the devices, which are used to shred tissue so that it can be removed from the body via a small abdominal incision, could promote the spread of undiagnosed uterine sarcomas and other cancers outside of the uterus. Such an occurrence can greatly diminish a patient’s chances of long-term survival, according to the agency.

The FDA has planned to convene an advisory panel meeting in July in order to investigate this matter further. Following the agency’s announcement, Johnson & Johnson’s Ethicon unit decided to suspend sales of its Gynecare Morcellex, Morcellex Sigma Tissue Morcellator System, and Gynecare X-Tract Tissue Morcellator products pending further guidance from the FDA.** A number of hospitals, including the Cleveland Clinic, have also moved to bar or limit the technique while the FDA review continues.***

Court documents indicate that a number of hysterectomy cancer lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts on behalf of women who allegedly experienced the spread of undetected uterine cancer because of power morcellation. In February, for example, the husband of a 53-year-old woman who died from uterine cancer less than a year after she underwent power morcellation filed a morcellator lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Case No. 14 5557) On May 1, 2014 a similar complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Western District of New York on behalf of a woman who blames uterine morcellation for the spread of leiomyosarcoma in her abdominal cavity. (Case 6:14-cv-06218) Most recently, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California on May 13, 2014 that claims the use of a Wolf Power Morcellator promoted the dissemination of uterine cancer cells throughout a woman’s peritoneal cavity. (Case No. Case5:14-cv-02209-PSG)

Patients whose cancers may have been spread via uterine morcellation could be entitled to file a hysterectomy cancer lawsuit against the manufacturer of the device used in their surgery To learn more about the risks potentially associated with power morcellators, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP’s website. To obtain a free legal review, please call 800-511-5092.

*bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2014/04/30/highmark-will-continue-to-pay-for-controversial.html, Pittsburgh Business Times, April 30, 2014
**reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-johnson-johnson-device-idUSKBN0DG06G20140430, Reuters, April 30, 2014
***cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/04/surgical_tool_for_hysterectomy.html, Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 28, 2014

About Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993. As a national law firm, Bernstein Liebhard LLP possesses all of the legal and financial resources required to successfully challenge billion dollar pharmaceutical and medical device companies. As a result, our attorneys and legal staff have been able to recover more than $3 billion on behalf of our clients. The Firm has been named by The National Law Journal to the Plaintiffs’ Hot List, recognizing the top plaintiffs firms in the country, for the past 12 consecutive years. Bernstein Liebhard LLP is the only firm in the country to be named to this prestigious list every year since it was first published in 2003.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP represents the victims of defective drugs and medical devices on a contingency-fee basis, and our clients are never expected to pay attorneys fees unless their case results in a successful recovery on their behalf. New York State’s contingency fee cap rules generally limit those fees to 33 1/3% of the total recovery. As a result, the Firm’s fees can be significantly lower than those assessed by attorneys in other states, which depending on the law may amount to as much as 40% or more of a plaintiff’s recovery.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
800-511-5092

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2014 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, 800-511-5092. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.

Contact Information:
Felecia L. Stern, Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
info(at)consumerinjurylawyers(dot)com
http://www.gynecaremorcellatorlawsuit.com/
https://plus.google.com/115936073311125306742?rel=author