Since the FDA first issued a warning about uterine morcellation in April, our Firm has received numerous inquiries from women who were allegedly harmed by power morcellators.
New York, New York (PRWEB) June 17, 2014
As hysterectomy cancer lawsuits (http://www.morcellatorlawsuit2015.com/) mount in U.S. courts, Bernstein Liebhard LLP notes that the controversy surrounding the use of power morcellators in gynecological surgeries has begun to escalate in advance of a planned U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel meeting on the issue. According to a report published by The Wall Street Journal on June 17, 2014, opponents of the surgical tool claim that the device's potential to spread uterine cancer makes it far too dangerous to use in laparoscopic hysterectomies and fibroid removals, especially as there are alternatives available that do not pose such a risk. But others argue that uterine morcellation still offers important benefits to some patients.*
“Since the FDA first issued a warning about uterine morcellation in April, our Firm has received numerous inquiries from women who were allegedly harmed by power morcellators. The Wall Street Journal article clearly highlights the troubling questions surrounding the use of this technology, as well as the need for further clarification from federal regulators regarding these types of procedures,” says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is now offering free morcellator lawsuit reviews to women who may have experienced the spread of undiagnosed uterine sarcoma and other cancers due to uterine morcellation.
Morcellator Cancer Risk
In April, the FDA issued an alert discouraging doctors from using power morcellators in laparoscopic hysterectomies and fibroid removals. According to the agency, the devices, which cut tissue into pieces so that it can be removed through a small abdominal incision, may spread undetected uterine sarcoma and other cancer cells into a woman’s peritoneal cavity. This can result in an “upstaging” of the cancer, and greatly diminish a patient’s chance of long-term survival. According to the FDA, 1 in 350 women undergoing fibroid removal may actually have undiagnosed cancer, and prescreening may not always detect the disease prior to uterine morcellation.
The FDA is scheduled to convene a meeting of its Obstetrics and Gynecological Devices Panel starting on July 10th to further investigate the use of power morcellators in uterine surgery.** According to The Wall Street Journal, some individuals scheduled to give testimony over the two-day meeting, including family members of cancer victims, plan to the ask the FDA to impose a ban on uterine morcellation. However, a number of medical groups that still view power morcellators as an important tool will ask the agency to take a less drastic approach that focuses on patient selection and other steps that might mitigate the risks associated with uterine morcellation.
In the meantime, court documents indicate that morcellator lawsuits have begun to mount in U.S. courts, all of which allege the use of power morcellators in gynecological surgeries resulted in the spread of uterine sarcoma and other cancers. 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 hysterectomy cancer 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). Less than two weeks later, 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)
Women who allegedly experienced the spread of uterine cancers due to power morcellation may be entitled to file their own hysterectomy cancer lawsuit. To learn more about this growing litigation, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP’s website. To obtain a free legal review, please call 800-511-5092.
*online.wsj.com/articles/showdown-for-surgical-tool-1402958775, The Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2014
**gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-09/html/2014-13290.htm, Federal Registry, June 9, 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
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.
Felecia L. Stern, Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP