It is not surprising that hospitals have begun to place moratoriums on the use of morcellation, considering the attention this matter has garnered since the FDA issued its advisory.
New York, New York (PRWEB) May 08, 2014
As morcellator lawsuits (http://www.morcellatorlawsuit2015.com/) begin to be filed on behalf of women whose uterine cancer was allegedly spread by the use of power morcellators, Bernstein Liebhard LLP notes that some hospitals have suspended the use of morcellation in uterine surgeries. According to a report published by the Pittsburgh Business Times on May 5th, St. Clair Hospital in Western Pennsylvania suspended such procedures following an April 17th advisory from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) discouraging the use of power morcellators in laparoscopic hysterectomy and fibroid removal surgeries, amid concerns that the devices may promote the spread of uterine sarcomas and other cancers outside of the uterus. However, officials with St. Clair Hospital told the Pittsburgh Business Times that the suspension is only temporary while the hospital formulates parameters for the use of power morcellation.*
“It is not surprising that hospitals have begun to place moratoriums on the use of morcellation, considering the attention this matter has garnered since the FDA issued its advisory. Our Firm has received a number of inquiries from individuals seeking to file hysterectomy cancer lawsuits since the alert was released,” says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is now offering power morcellator lawsuit reviews to women who suffered uterine sarcoma or other cancers allegedly spread by morcellation.
Power Morcellator Lawsuit Allegations
Power morcellators are manufactured by a number of medical device companies, and are used during laparoscopic hysterectomies and other minimally invasive procedures to cut uterine tissue into small pieces so that it can be removed from the body through a small abdominal incision. According to the FDA’s April 17th alert, its review of current literature indicates that 1 in 350 women undergoing fibroid removals may have undiagnosed uterine sarcoma, which could potentially be spread outside of the uterus if a power morcellator is used during the procedure. The agency is planning to convene an advisory panel meeting this summer to further investigate this issue.
Since then, Johnson & Johnson announced that its Ethicon, Inc. unit would suspend sales of its power morcellators, including the Gynecare Morcellex device, as well as the Morcellex Sigma Tissue Morcellator System, and the Gynecare X-Tract Tissue Morcellator. According to a report published by Reuters, the company is waiting for further clarification from the FDA before it will resume sales of its morcellator products.**
A number of other hospitals around the country have also placed moratoriums on the use of power morcellators. According to a report published by The Cleveland Plain-Dealer, these include Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and the Cleveland Clinic.***
Court documents indicate that a number of power morcellator lawsuits are already pending in U.S. courts. These include a case filed May 1, 2014, in U.S. District Court, Western District of New York on behalf of a woman who blames the use of a power morcellator for the spread of leiomyosarcoma in her abdominal cavity. (Case 6:14-cv-06218) In February, 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)
Compensation may be available for women who allegedly experienced the spread of uterine sarcoma and other cancers following a laparoscopic hysterectomy or fibroid removal procedure that involved the use of a power morcellator. For more information about the risks allegedly associated with power morcellation, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website. To obtain a free, no obligation hysterectomy cancer lawsuit review, please call 800-511-5092.
*bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/the-pulse/2014/05/st-clair-hospital-suspends-use-of-surgical-tool.html?page=all, Pittsburgh Business Times, May 5, 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
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