Class Counsel Announce Patients File Class Action Lawsuit Against
Medtronic For Manufacturing Faulty Defibrillator Lead Wires
Plaintiffs Seek To Hold Medtronic Responsible For The Injuries They
Suffered And To Reimburse All Patients With The Defective Leads For The
Medical Care And Surgical Expenses Arising Out Of The Medtronic Recall
MINNEAPOLIS, Minn. & SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (Billboard Publicity Wire via Business Wire EON) October 15, 2007 --
Class counsel announced today that heart patients nationwide implanted
with recalled defibrillator leads filed separate lawsuits in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, against the
manufacturer Medtronic Inc., and related companies. Each plaintiff
received a cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator combination that was attached
to their hearts with a lead wire system manufactured by Medtronic and
sold under the brand name Sprint Fidelis. In the case of three of the
patients, the Sprint Fidelis lead fractured or frayed, necessitating
additional surgery to remove the device and implant a new lead system.
The plaintiffs are residents of California, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, New York and Oregon.
“The complaints charge that Medtronic has
misrepresented the safety of the Sprint Fidelis leads and a large
proportion may fracture,” stated class counsel
Elizabeth J. Cabraser of the national plaintiffs’
law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. “As
a result, patients may receive massive, unnecessary electrical shocks or
the device may fail to function during a life-threatening cardiac event.”
“The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead, compared
to competing products, has a significantly higher failure rate that
appears in just the first two years after implantation. We are concerned
that Medtronic is minimizing the likelihood that patients may need to
have their lead surgically removed,” stated
Wendy R. Fleishman, a partner at the New York office of Lieff Cabraser. “It
is critical that patients with the recalled Medtronic lead promptly meet
with their physician and discuss their options.”
Medtronic has not disclosed the precise mechanism of the Sprint Fidelis
lead fracture failures. The complaints charge that it appears the defect
is attributable to the small diameter of the coil and conductors in the
lead and because of this the lead is subject to stress damage both
during and after the implant. Fracture eventually occurs when the
conductor is critically overstressed.
“The defect is potentially fatal,”
explained class counsel Nick J. Drakulich of The Drakulich Firm of San
Diego, California. “In the class action
lawsuit filed in Minnesota, plaintiffs seek an order from the Court
requiring that Medtronic create a treatment fund to monitor the health
of all patients with the recalled lead and reimburse patients for all
diagnostic and corrective medical and surgical expenses attributable to
their faulty leads.”
“Both the patients who have had to undergo
unnecessary and invasive surgeries as a result of Medtronic's actions --
which Medtronic has only now begun to admit but has not accepted
responsibility for - and those who now fear that their life-saving
devices may not save their lives, should have their opportunity to
obtain justice,” added Seth R. Lesser of the
Locks Law Firm in New York, New York.
Plaintiffs’
Experiences and Allegations
In January 2006, Kelly Luisi of San Diego, California, a plaintiff in
the class action lawsuit filed in Minnesota, was implanted with a
defibrillator with a Sprint Fidelis lead. As alleged in the complaint,
in March 2007, Ms. Luisi experienced frightening episodes of unnecessary
shocks. She went to the hospital and was admitted in the emergency
department. The Medtronic Representative was present, and when he used
his device to interrogate the device, Ms. Luisi’s
defibrillator began delivering unnecessary shocks over and over again.
The Medtronic Representative did not have a magnet to deenergize the
leads, and could not immediately deactivate the device. Ms. Luisi
experienced several additional inappropriate and frightening shocks at
the emergency room.
Ms. Luisi’s lead was removed in April 2007 as
it has fractured. Ms. Luisi was required to undergo additional and
complicated surgery to remove and replace the faulty lead.
In the lawsuit filed in Puerto Rico, plaintiff Russell Nelson of
Portland, Oregon, received a defibrillator heart with a Sprint Fidelis
lead in March 2005. The lead was found to have “frayed”
in the nature of a fracture and was replaced in an emergency surgery in
January of 2007.
In October 2005, George Anastas, a resident of Westminister,
Massachusetts, and also a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed in Puerto Rico,
received a defibrillator with a Sprint Fidelis lead.
The complaint charges that in May 2006, Mr. Anastas experienced
frightening episodes of unnecessary shocks. He went to the hospital and
was admitted in the emergency department. A Medtronic representative was
present, and when he used his device to interrogate the defibrillator,
it began delivering repetitive unnecessary shocks. The Medtronic
representative did not have a magnet to deenergize the leads, and could
not immediately deactivate the device. Mr. Anastas experienced several
additional inappropriate and frightening shocks at the emergency room.
As was the case with Ms. Luisi, the Medtronic lead system inside Mr.
Anastas had fractured. Mr. Anastas was therefore forced to undergo
additional and complicated surgery to remove and replace the faulty lead.
Information for Heart Patients
On October 15, 2007, due to reports of adverse events and at least five
patient deaths with defibrillator leads sold under the brand name Sprint
Fidelis, Medtronic issued a recall of the product.
Leads are the thin insulated wires connected to a defibrillator that
carry electric impulses to the heart. Your wallet card will specify the
manufacturer of your defibrillator leads If you would like to learn more
about the Medtronic recall and your legal rights, please visit http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com
Patients that have had to undergo surgery to replace a faulty lead or
have been advised by a physician their lead may be defective are also
welcome to call class counsel toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to
speak to attorney Heather A. Foster at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.
Resources for Reporters
Reporters that wish to receive a copy of the class action complaint are
welcome to contact Stephen Cassidy at Lieff Cabraser at scassidy@lchb.com
or (415) 956-1000.
About Plaintiffs’
Counsel
Representing plaintiffs in the Minnesota class action lawsuit are Daniel
E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC; Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Wendy R.
Fleishman and Rebecca Bedwell-Coll, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP; Silvija A. Strikis, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans
& Figel, PLLC; Nicholas J. Drakulich, The Drakulich Firm; Jennings &
Drakulich, LLP; Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault; Hunter
J. Shkolnik, Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, Shkolnik & Mccartney LLP; and
Seth R. Lesser, Locks Law Firm.
Representing plaintiffs in the Puerto Rico lawsuit are John F. Nevares,
Smith & Nevares; Camillo K. Salas, III, Salas & Co.; Richard J.
Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault; Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Wendy R.
Fleishman and Rebecca Bedwell-Coll, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP; Nicholas A. Drakulich, The Drakulich Firm; Jennings &
Drakulich, LLP; Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC; Seth R.
Lesser, Locks Law Firm; Hunter J. Shkolnik, Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold,
Shkolnik & Mccartney LLP; and Silvija A. Strikis, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC.
Post Comment: Trackback URL: http://billboard.prweb.com/pingpr.php/VGhpci1IYWxmLVNpbmctTG92ZS1UaGlyLVplcm8=
Bookmark -
Del.icio.us |
Digg |
Furl It |
Spurl |
RawSugar |
Simpy |
Shadows |
Blink It |
My Web
|
Share The News
Submit this press release easily to any of these major bookmarking and social media sites.