September 10, 2010
Firm Profile Our People Areas Of Practice 10 Reasons to Choose Bagolie Friedman Why Choose a Certified Civil Trial Attorney? Client Comments Success Stories Scrapbook International Inquires En Español
Driving Directions Useful Links Resources For Workers New Jersey Fun Facts Florida Fun Facts AMO Moisture Plus Contact Lens Solution Recall Lawyers Blog
Chartie Artificial Disc Injury Lawyers Blog
Duragesic Fentanyl Pain Patch Overdose Lawyers Blog
Vinyl Chloride Angiosarcoma Liver & Bile Duct Cancer Lawyers Blog
Workers Comp & Injury Lawyers Blog
New Jersey Mesothelioma Lawyer Blog
MRI Contrast Gadolinium Nephrogenic Kidney Lawyers Blog
Site Map Disclaimer Contact Us Home
Clifton, New Jersey Bayonne, New Jersey Elizabeth, New Jersey Hackensack, New Jersey Jersey City, New Jersey Hollywood, Florida

News You Can Use

JUDGE RULES THAT CHARITE DISC SUITS AGAINST DEPUY MAY PROCEED
Wednesday, January 16, 2008

An important initial ruling was entered by Judge Susan Garsh regarding lawsuits brought On behalf of individuals who have been injured due to the failure of the Charité Artificial Disc, which is manufactured by DePuy Spine, Inc.

The Complaints filed on behalf of the injured Plaintiffs allege that DePuy supplied inaccurate information to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) concerning the performance capabilities of the Charité Disc, and failed to disclose to the FDA critical data concerning failures and complications which arose during clinical studies. The Complaints further allege that the Disc failed to perform in accordance with the express warranties made to physicians, patients and the general public that the Disc would be a safe and effective treatment to replace diseased or damaged intervertebral disc, for individuals suffering from chronic back pain.

DePuy sought the summary dismissal of the Plaintiffs claims under the theory that since the Charité Artificial Disc passed the FDA’s rigorous application process, any claim for injury from the use of such an ‘approved’ medical device is preempted by the FDA’s determination that the product was safe for patient use. Typically, under preemption, the FDA approval of a medical device absolves the manufacturer from any liability for injury caused by the device. As the FDA requires a rigorous testing and application process, in proper cases the preemption doctrine is intended to insulate medical device manufacturers from liability where the device is manufactured and distributed in accordance with the specifications approved by the FDA. Accordingly, DePuy argued that the Plaintiffs’ Complaints should be dismissed regardless of the harm suffered to the Plaintiffs, on the basis that the FDA approved the device after many years of rigorous testing.

On April 9, 2007, Judge Garsh denied DePuy’s Motion for Summary Judgment. In her carefully reasoned decision, Judge Garsh held that the allegations of the Plaintiffs’ Complaints, if proven true, state several causes of action which are not preempted by the FDA’s approval of the Disc. The Plaintiffs’ Complaints contend that DePuy provided the FDA with incomplete and misleading information concerning its clinical trials, and that DePuy made false representations in regard to the performance capabilities of the Disc, Accordingly, Judge Garsh ruled that FDA preemption cannot form a shield to claims whirch are based upon problems with the Disc’s design and performance that DePuy failed to disclose to the FDA during the application process.

In addition, Judge Garsh ruled that DePuy made express representations to doctors, patients and the general public concerning the Disc’s safety and effectiveness, which exceeded the performance capabilities which DePuy presented to the FDA. Noting that preemption immunity cannot extend beyond the performance capabilities that the FDA actually reviewed, Judge Garsh held that DePuy is liable for the promises it made which were never considered or approved by the FDA.

Prior to the Court’s ruling, DePuy had obtained a stay of all discovery. With this ruling in place, the discovery process will begin in earnest, and the Plaintiffs will be able to obtain written documents and to take depositions in pursuit of the resolution of their claims.

[ Return To The News ]


First Name: Last Name:
Phone:
-

Sending this message does not create an attorney-client relationship, which can be done only after personal consultation and with a written retainer agreement.
Office Locations
Jersey City

660 Newark Avenue
Jersey City, NJ 07306
Phone: (201) 656-8500
Toll: 1-(866)-333-3529
info@bagoliefriedman.com

Clifton Offices

790 Bloomfield Avenue
Clifton, NJ 07012
Phone: (973) 546-5414

157 Ackerman Avenue
Clifton, NJ 07011
Phone: (973) 546-5414

Florida Office

3900 Hollywood Blvd.
Hollywood, FL 33021
Phone: (954) 966-2322
Fax: (954) 927-0337

Home Areas Of Practice Areas Served Videos Our People Firm Profile Client Comments Success Stories Contact Us
 

Disclaimer: The New Jersey personal injury, wrongful death, worker's compensation, medical malpractice, nursing home abuse, product liability, environmental litigation, social security law, railroad / FELA, firefighter hearing loss, Asbestos / Mesothelioma, Lead Paint Poisoning and/or other legal information offered herein by Bagolie Friedman, LLC - Jersey City and Clifton New Jersey and Hollywood Florida Personal Injury Attorneys is not formal legal advice nor the formation of an attorney client relationship. Our law firm is licensed to practice law in New Jersey, New York and Florida. Nationwide and international coverage through associated counsel.