Baton Rouge Cases We Handle

Essure Birth Control LAWSUIT


Essure is a metal coil that is inserted in the fallopian tubes to prevent pregnancy by forming scar tissue that prevents sperm from reaching the egg. The procedure requires no anesthesia or incisions and is inserted using a hysteroscope, a small camera. This method has been widely used and can take up from three to six months to become effective in which case a medical professional must determine the effectiveness. During this period in which the scar tissue is attempting to form, the Essure user must take another form of birth control in order to prevent pregnancy.

What are the Benefits of Essure?

Because Essure requires no incision or anesthesia, it is often widely accepted by women who are wanting to permanently prevent pregnancy. After Essure is officially effective, there is only a 0.1% chance of getting pregnant. Many women who have had Essure inserted have reported no long-term effects.

Why are There Lawsuits against Essure?

Recently, on July 20, 2018, Bayer has decided to completely stop selling Essure to women everywhere by the end of 2018. Despite Essure’s claims of women reporting no long-term side effects from the metal coil, more than 16,000 women have come forward to file a lawsuit against the birth control implant. There is also a group consisting of 37,000 members on Facebook called “Essure Problems.” Women reported to the F.D.A that the side effects from Essure consists of a wide range of problems, anywhere from hair and tooth loss to infant death and severe bleeding. Although the birth control implant is scheduled to halt all sales by 2019, the F.D.A. required that Bayer place a “black box warning” on Essure warning all women of the risk of injury in 2016. Recently, Bayer has been ordered by the F.D.A. to explain in detail all the problems and side effects linked to Essure before a woman undergoes the procedure.

What is Happening with Essure Now?

Sales have declined by 70%. Bayer has denied claims that Essure is unsafe and ensures that women can still effectively rely on the product. They blame negative publicity for the decline in sales. The company will continue studies and research on Essure and continue to inform women on the dangers of Essure and work with the F.D.A. However, even with the 16,000 lawsuits filed and the 37,000 members a part of the “Essure Problems” Facebook group, Bayer will continue to defend and support the use of Essure.

Are You a Victim of Essure?

Are you a victim of Essure? Have you or a loved one been affected by the dangers of Essure? Murphy Law Firm is here to fight for you. Call one of our experienced attorneys today to know your rights against Essure.



What is Osteoarthritis?

Osteoarthritis is one of the most common forms of arthritis that affects millions of people across the world. It can affect all joints but is dominant in the knees, hands, and spine. Osteoarthritis occurs when the protective material, known as the cartilage, between the knee joints gradually wears down and worsens over time. It is one of the most common disabilities seen among adults. It affects 13.9% of adults over the age of 25 and 33.6% of adults over the age of 65. Victims of osteoarthritis of the knee undergo Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) which is a common procedure to replace the weight-bearing surfaces of the knee joint in order to relieve the patient’s pain and disability. However, TKA often left patients in recovery rooms for weeks waiting until they were able to bear any weight on the impacted knee.

Why was Attune Developed?

ATTUNE® Knee System was designed to exceed all leading knee systems and to improve the outcomes of TKA such as a shorter recovery period and to allow patients more movement within the knee. Said to be an “innovative, comprehensive, integrated knee system,” it is no wonder so many fall victim to this heinous procedure. Although the Attune TKA was successful at first, patients began to experience many problems within two years of surgery. The Journal of Knee Surgery published a study related to Attune TKA, more specifically, researchers discovered 232 reports of problems related to the Attune TKA that were derived from a total of 3 hospital databases. Several orthopedic surgeons detected a surprisingly high-rate of premature failures in relation to the ATTUNE® Knee System. These premature failures included unusual swelling, instability and loosening of the tibia, decreased range of motion and persistent pain. Despite the optimistic promises of the ATTUNE® Knee System developers, the system fails many of the patients who undergo the surgery. These same patients have to undergo another surgery to correct the issues that the ATTUNE® Knee System caused them, leaving the victims emotionally drained with a new financial burden.

What can Murphy Law Firm do for You?

Don’t be a victim twice! If you or a loved one are experiencing any of the problems such as unusual swelling, instability and loosening of the tibia, decreased range of motion and persistent pain and believe it’s due to the ATTUNE® Knee System, please call to speak to one of the attorneys at Murphy Law Firm at (225) 928-8800 to find out what your rights are and how we can help. Murphy Law Firm specializes in cases to not only help the victim but to also relieve them of their financial and emotional burden.

What is Talcum Powder?


Talcum Powder is a product that has historically been used on the skin to prevent rashes and moisture. It can also be found in numerous cosmetic products such as baby powder, adult body powder, and facial powder.  It is a powder made from talc, which consists of the elements magnesium, silicon, and oxygen. In its natural form, talc contains asbestos, which if found in the body can cause cancer to the affected and surrounding areas

Our law firm has substantial expertise in the highly specialized field of talcum powder exposure litigation.”

Attorney Peyton Murphy

What is Dangerous about Talcum Powder?

Talcum Powder has been linked to many types of cancer as a result the main ingredient, talc, which contains cancer-causing asbestos. Many companies have been forced to change their ingredients as a direct result of the dangers associated with talc being used on or around the body.

Who is Affected?

Women who have regularly applied powder to the genital area have a statistically higher (30% increased risk) in contracting ovarian cancer. When the powder is directly applied to such areas, there is a risk of the particles moving up into the ovaries, causing cancer. People who have worked in or around areas with talc particles are also at an increased risk in developing lung cancer or other respiratory diseases. On average, there are approximately 2,500 asbestos-related lung cancer fatalities each year.

Current News on Talcum Powder-Related Lawsuits

As of the end of 2018, over 11,000 lawsuits have been filed relating to Talcum Powder causing cancer, with over 5 billion dollars awarded in settlements. In August of 2017, 63 year old Eva Echeverria was awarded $417 million by a Los Angeles jury in her case against Johnson & Johnson. She argued that the company should have warned users of the risks that accompanied the use of Talcum Powder. In July of 2018, another major payout was awarded to 22 women in a class-action lawsuit. They were awarded $550 million in damages in addition to a $4.14 billion punitive damages fee.

Are You Affected?

Have you or a loved one been affected by Talcum Powder? Murphy Law Firm is here to fight with you. Call one of our experienced attorneys today to learn your rights against 3M at (225) 928-8800, or visit our office today at 2354 S Acadian Thruway, Baton Rouge, LA 70802.



In July 2018 3M agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Justice $9.1 million to settle a whistleblower claim alleging it violated the False Claims Act lawsuit, by knowingly selling defective Combat Arms™ earplugs to the U.S. military

3M, and its predecessor Aero Technologies, were the U.S. military’s sole supplier of earplugs from 2003 to 2012 and continued to sell the earplugs to the military until they were discontinued in 2015.

Use of these earplugs may result in:

Hearing Loss

Tinnitus (ringing in the ears)

The individuals qualified will at least have these qualities:

The 3M Military Earplug lawsuit makes a claim that 3M sold defective earplugs to the military between the years of 2003 and 2015. It was found that these earplugs are ineffective. Their inability to hold tightly in the user’s ears were compromised which caused damage to the user. As a result many veterans have had their hearing adversely affected and will need to deal with the consequences for the rest of their lives. Our law firm is evaluating cases and helping those victims recover what they are rightfully owed.

What are 3M Combat Arms™ Earplugs?

The defective earplugs were dual-ended, or “selective attenuation earplugs” and were designed to be worn two ways – either as traditional earplugs, to block out loud noises; or in the open position, to allow the wearer to hear speech and quieter noises. However, the stems of the earplugs were too short and would gradually loosen, permitting damaging sounds to enter the wearer’s ears. The lawsuit alleged that Aero knew about the defective design, as early as 2000, and that they manipulated testing results in order to procure the military contract. The defective earplugs were standard issue for certain branches of the military from 2003 to 2015.

What's Wrong With Them?

Although the dual-ended combat arms earplugs have been standard issue for over a decade, they have one major deficiency. The earplug stem is too short, preventing it from staying far enough inside the ear canal to effectively prevent high frequency sound from reaching the eardrum. This issue has been found to be the cause of major ear problems with veterans. Long-term effects include tinnitus (ringing in the ears), hearing loss, and balance loss.

Lawsuits with 3M Earplugs

By the end of 2015, over 1 million veterans were being compensated for hearing loss. Although 3M claims no wrongdoing, they agreed to pay 9.1 million dollars in compensation to the the Department of Justice. 3M is currently being sued by individual plaintiffs that claim the company’s act of omitting their defects from public knowledge led to major personal/physical damages.

Scientific Studies About Veteran Hearing Loss

From Military Medical Research:

Military personnel are exposed to high levels of noise frequently, and this has led to hearing loss and tinnitus being the second most prevalent service-related disability. 3M’s actions could have contributed to these numbers. Military Medical Research,(link below), provides a report of the extent of the hearing loss problems.


Hearing Loss widespread Among Post-9/11 Veterans; the most widespread injury for veterans has been hearing loss and other auditory complications.


Hearing problems—including tinnitus—are by far the most prevalent service-connected disability among American Veterans.

News Articles:

Contractor settles for $9.1 million after providing defective earplugs for servicemembers.


Veterans sue, saying 3M Combat earplugs caused hearing injuries


Combat veteran files lawsuit for loss of hearing due to defective military earplugs

Do You Think You’ve Been Affected by 3M Earplugs?



The first transvaginal mesh product was introduced by Boston Scientific Corporation in the mid-1990s before the manufacturer voluntary recalled the product in 1999. Transvaginal mesh products were intended to be the faster and easier alternative to procedures aimed at correcting pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence occur when the pelvic muscles weaken – usually following childbirth, a hysterectomy, or menopause – causing the pelvic organs (including the bladder, rectum, and uterus) to collapse into the vagina.

In an effort to correct pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence, synthetic transvaginal mesh is surgically implanted into the vagina and acts as a sling that upholds the pelvic organs. Transvaginal mesh is the same mesh that has been used successfully for years in surgical hernia repairs. However, prior to being released into the healthcare market, the mesh was never tested for safety in vaginal repairs. Rather, transvaginal mesh products were approved through the FDA’s controversial 510(k) system, which is the fast-track approval system of products that are similar enough to products already FDA-approved.

transvaginal mesh complications baton rouge transvaginal mesh complications lawyer Baton Rouge transvaginal mesh complications attorney baton rouge injury lawyers

Problems Arise

In 2008, the FDA released a public health announcement notifying consumers of injuries caused by transvaginal mesh products – but the injuries were considered rare. However, after reviewing scientific research, the FDA updated its advisory in 2011 to reflect its findings that transvaginal mesh injuries were not rare. Of the over 300,000 transvaginal mesh operations in 2010 alone, over 10% failed. Based on scientific research gathered between 1996 and 2011, the FDA determined that there is no conclusive evidence that transvaginal mesh repairs improve the quality of life more so than non-mesh repairs; that trans vaginal mesh operations involve more risks than non-mesh repairs; and that transvaginal mesh repairs to correct prolapse may not cure symptoms of prolapse.

Once implanted, the transvaginal mesh infuses with surrounding tissues and organs, thus making the process of removing the mesh difficult and sometimes impossible. In a study conducted by the Society of Genealogical Surgeons, 87% of women who had received a transvaginal mesh operation said they would not have had the operation if they had known prior to surgery what they now know about transvaginal mesh. Surgical removal of the mesh, which involves a lengthy recovery, is costly and dangerous. Because this type of removal surgery is a relatively recent procedure, there are not many experts in the field. Therefore, removing all the mesh pieces could involve several surgeries – and as many as seven removal surgeries for one patient have been documented.

Side Effects

Transvaginal mesh erosion occurs when the rough edges of synthetic mesh cut the vaginal lining and nearby organs. This and other complications associated with transvaginal mesh also cause:

  • Organ perforation (includes injuries to bowel and bladder)
  • Vaginal infections, vaginal pain, vaginal bleeding, and vaginal scarring
  • Severe pain during intercourse (can happen to both partners)
  • Inability to have intercourse
  • Urinary problems and obstruction of urethra
  • Abscesses and nerve injuries
  • Neuromuscular issues
  • Psychological and emotional problems
  • Aginal shortening and tightening (mesh often contracts once implanted)
  • Recurrent prolapse or incontinence
 If you or a member of your family is or has been a victim of transvaginal mesh injuries, please contact experienced injury attorney Peyton Murphy at (225) 928-8800 to schedule an appointment for a free initial consultation. The Murphy Law Firm, LLC represents clients nationwide.



A number of surgical mesh products have been developed for use in hernia repairs. But some types of hernia mesh have been recalled because of high rates of complications and injuries to patients. If you have had surgical mesh implanted as part of a hernia repair procedure and developed complications or had an adverse reaction, you should speak with a knowledgeable hernia mesh injury lawyer about your legal options.

Patients who have been harmed by hernia mesh side effects may have a right to file a personal injury lawsuit against the manufacturer of the defective mesh product.

The attorneys at Murphy Law Firm are currently investigating cases of hernia mesh injuries involving mesh products manufactured by Ethicon, Inc., and Atrium Medical. Their defective products have been used in many hernia repair procedures.

hernia mesh injury baton rouge hernia mesh injury lawyer baton rouge hernia mesh injury attorney baton rouge injury lawyers

As a patient, you have a right to expect any medical device used to repair your hernia will work effectively and not cause harm. Our product liability attorneys at Murphy Law Firm have the knowledge and resources to hold accountable large manufacturers that put defective products on the market and put patients’ lives at risk.

If you or your loved one has been harmed by defective surgical mesh, contact us for a free consultation to discuss whether a hernia mesh lawsuit is in order. We can offer legal assistance to people with hernia mesh injury claims throughout the United States, regardless of where you reside.

What Can Our Lawyers Do for You?

The attorneys at Murphy Law Firm are experienced at handling product liability cases involving defective medical products and unsafe devices.

If we believe that you have a valid hernia mesh injury lawsuit, we will obtain your medical records and identify how defective hernia mesh harmed you and your loved ones.

When medical device manufacturers fail to meet their legal obligation to make and market safe products and to give adequate warning of known hazards, they should be held accountable. We will seek evidence to show that your injury was the result of a manufacturing defect and/or a design defect, or that the manufacturer failed to warn adequately of dangers related to the product.

It is important to understand that a hernia mesh injury lawsuit would not name your doctor. Your surgeon who performed the hernia repair would not have had any way of knowing the mesh product was dangerous, if the manufacturer failed to warn adequately of the dangers.

You may have had to go additional hernia surgery due to complications of defective mesh such as a hernia recurrence. We will estimate your immediate and future medical expenses related to the hernia mesh complications, the impact the injuries have had on your quality of life and your present and future lost income. That information will be gathered to estimate the compensation that you should receive for your injury.

We will handle negotiations with the insurance companies representing the medical device manufacturers. We will fight aggressively for a settlement that reflects the extent of your injuries and impact on your quality of life.

Most surgical mesh products are made of synthetic materials or animal tissue. But some materials cause adverse reactions. Patients and doctors have reported to the FDA numerous injuries and side effects related to hernia mesh.

Complications linked to hernia mesh include pain, inflammation, shrinkage and the mesh shifting inside the patient’s body, according to the Food and Drug Administration. Internal movement of hernia mesh can cause bowel blockages, organ perforation, adhesions as well as infections and other complications.

If a defective product has been used widely, it may have harmed numerous people before it was recognized as unsafe or withdrawn from use. Some surgical mesh products have been recalled because of complications and injuries to patients that required the patients to undergo repeat surgeries.

Numerous lawsuits may be filed against the manufacturer of the defective or unsafe product. Courts may combine cases as a class action lawsuit because plaintiffs’ claims are similar or as multi-district litigation, which allows key aspects of separate cases to be handled more efficiently at the same time. Multi-district litigation is underway for patients suing Atrium and its parent company.

What are the Complications with Ethicon Physiomesh?

Ethicon, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, introduced a product called Physiomesh™ Flexible Composite Mesh for use in laparoscopic hernia repairs in 2010. Ethicon withdrew the product from the market in 2016 because of unacceptably high rates of patient complications.

The mesh product was intended for use in laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs in the abdominal wall. Physiomesh™ has a unique design, incorporating outer layers of Monocryl film coatings over a polypropylene mesh inner layer. Designed to minimize adhesion to abdominal organs, the outer coatings have prevented the mesh from incorporating properly into the body and contributed to adverse reactions among patients.

In removing the product from the market, Ethicon said that a review of patient data in two European health registries by Ethicon’s Product Safety Team indicated that patients who had Physiomesh™ Flexible Composite Mesh implanted had above average rates of complications requiring repeat surgeries.

While Physiomesh™ Flexible Composite mesh (for laparoscopic use) is no longer on the market, many patients who have had laparoscopic hernia repairs still have Physiomesh™ hernia mesh in their bodies and may still develop complications. If you had laparoscopic surgery during the years from 2010 to 2016 for a ventral wall hernia repair, you may have had Physiomesh™ implanted.

What are the Complications with Atrium C-QUR™ Hernia Mesh?

Atrium Medical Corporation, based in Hudson, New Hampshire, manufactured the C-QUR™ (pronounced “secure”) Mesh used in hernia repairs from 2006 until 2015, when federal regulators obtained a court order to shut it down. If you underwent hernia repair surgery and C-QUR mesh was used in the procedure and you have had complications, you may have a claim against Atrium Medical Corp.

Inspectors from the Food and Drug Administration found problems with Atrium’s sterilization procedures during an inspection and in 2012 warned Atrium that its manufacturing, sterilization and storage procedures violated federal standards. In 2015, the FDA won permanent injunction against Atrium, shutting down Atrium’s manufacturing facility in Hudson, N.J. and preventing Atrium from producing C-QUR mesh.

The C-QUR mesh is made of a polymer plastic with an Omega-3 gel coating designed to prevent the mesh from sticking to abdominal walls. Doctors have reported problems with the Omega-3 fish oil derived coating not sticking to the mesh as intended.

Frequently, patients have had to undergo repeat surgeries to locate and remove the defective C-QUR mesh and repair abdominal organs or other damaged tissue. If you have experienced any of these C-QUR mesh complications, you should speak with an experienced attorney at Murphy Law Firm about whether a C-QUR mesh lawsuit is appropriate in your case.

Should You Speak with an Attorney?

At Murphy Law Firm, our attorneys are available to review the specific facts of your hernia mesh complications and discuss your legal options free of charge.

We understand that you don’t need more bills right now. Our attorneys will outline the legal steps you can take and provide information so that you can make a decision about how to proceed.



Research has recently discovered evidence of gadolinium deposition in patients following Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) exams in which gadolinium-based contrast agents were administered. The deposition of gadolinium has primarily been found in neuronal tissues. Because many patients have undergone one million or more MRI exams each year, researchers are concerned about the effects that Gadolinium deposition potentially has.

What are the Symptoms?

Recently, a clinical diagnostic finding for Gadolinium Deposition Disease has been found. Symptoms of GDD start within minutes of the administration of a gadolinium-based contrast agent to one month. Symptoms of gadolinium include:


This is in the early stages. It is also known as mental confusion.


This symptoms arises in the early stages after the exam has taken place. It is often felt in the extremities.


Pain may occur along with these symptoms. Arm and leg skin tightening and thickening could arise within two weeks of the administration of gadolinium-based contrast agents. This symptom reflects nerve disease which could potentially relate back to the gadolinium deposition in the neuronal tissues.


This symptom reflects nerve disease which could potentially relate back to the gadolinium deposition in the neuronal tissues.

What Can You Do if You Believe that You have GDD?

If you or a loved one have been diagnosed with Gadolinium Deposition Disease, then you are in the right place. Murphy Law Firm has attorneys with years of experience working to fight for you against this disease. Contact our office at (225) 928-8800 to speak to one of these attorneys about your potential case and to know your rights.



An inferior vena cava filter, or IVC filter, is an implanted device designed to prevent blood clots from reaching a patient’s lungs. Unfortunately, poorly designed and defective IVC filters have caused irreparable harm to thousands of patients. The most common injuries include punctured organs/veins, filter migration from the implant site and the creation of blood clots.

Injured patients and their family members may have the right to money damages through an IVC filter lawsuit. Most IVC product liability claims are being consolidated in federal court dockets specifically designed to address the widespread injuries cause by defective filters. Because there are thousands of IVC filter victims with varying injuries, it is important that you document your harm extensively and pursue legal recourse quickly.

ivc filter injuries and recall baton rouge ivc filter injuries and recall lawyer baton rouge ivc filter injuries and recall attorney baton rouge injury lawyers

Dangers of IVC Filters

The purpose of inferior vena cava filters is to prevent blood clots from reaching the lungs, a potentially fatal condition known as a pulmonary embolism (PE). However, many IVC filter manufacturers did a poor job designing and constructing the devices. One medical study found that 40 percent of implanted IVC filters had moved from their optimal position.

The type of defect and damage caused varies among patients, but the most common IVC injuries and problems include:

  • Perforation, or puncture, of organs and blood vessels
  • Failure to filter harmful blood clots after the device migrates or tilts
  • Harm or death from IVC filter fractures, which send fragments through the bloodstream
  • Blood clots, or embolization, caused by the IVC filter
  • Lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT)

IVC filters were designed to be used for only a short time – the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) listed the ideal implant time as 29 to 54 days – but many devices remain in the patient longer or fail before they can be removed. Further, IVC filter removal is often troublesome and presents its own risks.

Government Warnings

In 2004, medical device manufacturer C.R. Bard hired a litigation consultant to explore the danger of its newly designed IVC filters versus older models. The report, frequently referred to as the Lehmann Report, was created for internal purposes only and accidentally leaked. Its admissibility as evidence in IVC filter product liability lawsuits is highly contentious. At a minimum, the report indicates that C.R. Bard knew its IVC filters presented serious side effects to patients, but did not share that knowledge with patients or the FDA.

In 2013, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) examined the risks and benefits related to the duration of a patient’s IVC filter implant. After researchers examined available medical records, they found that many physicians were failing to timely remove IVC filters from their patients when the threat of pulmonary embolism had passed.

The scientists reviewed available data to find an ideal time span for IVC filter devices to be removed from patients, concluding that 29 to 54 days after implantation is often optimal. IVC filters have a high failure rate that increases the longer the device stays implanted. Described as a net risk score, research revealed that the risk of adverse events began to increase five to eight weeks after a patient is implanted with an IVC filter.

IVC Filter Models and Manufacturers

The manufacturers and models responsible for most of the IVC filter injuries in the U.S. include:


  • Bard G2 filter
  • Bard recovery filter
  • Bard G2 Express filter


  • Cook Celect
  • Gunther Tulip

The specific IVC filter responsible for your health problems may impact where you should file your lawsuit. Learn more in the section below.

IVC Filter Litigation

The number of patients injured by IVC filters is rapidly growing, so U.S. courts are organizing the claims against Cook Medical in a process known as multidistrict litigation (MDL). IVC filter lawsuits against Cook Medical are being consolidated in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana.

Claims against C.R. Bard have not yet been consolidated, but that will likely happen soon. Defendant manufacturers typically favor MDL because it allows them to systematically defend – or settle – the lawsuits in a single court, before a single judge.

In some cases, an injury victim’s claim is not appropriate for consolidating into the MDL docket. An experienced defective medical device lawyer can help you decide what approach is best for your IVC filter lawsuit.

Murphy Law Firm, LLC is representing IVC filter victims and accepting more clients. Our law firm has successfully represented thousands of people with product liability claims involving defective medical devices or pharmaceutical drugs. Our IVC filter lawyers have the experience your claim needs to get you fully compensated.

For a FREE initial consultation with founding attorney Peyton P. Murphy, call (225) 928-8800, or contact us online.



When a sizable number of people have suffered similar injuries due to the actions of a corporation, business or individual, it often is more efficient to group the claims together as a class action or mass tort lawsuit rather than handle them as individual claims. Class action and mass tort lawsuits offer an opportunity for groups of people, all of whom have been similarly wronged, to sue collectively. If you suspect that you or a loved one has been seriously harmed by a faulty product, medical device or unsafe prescription drug, your next step should be to contact a knowledgeable attorney to discuss whether you have a valid mass tort claim.

The class action lawyers at Murphy Law Firm LLC, in Baton Rouge, offer experienced legal representation for class action and mass tort lawsuits. We have been helping clients with complex personal injury cases since 1993. Our goal is to help Louisiana families rebuild their lives after a serious injury. Our attorneys understand what requirements must be met under federal law and the Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure Article 591 to pursue a mass tort claim or class action lawsuit. A mass tort case may be tried in Louisiana or in another state, depending on the claims and parties involved. We will help pursue compensation if you have been harmed by a dangerous product, defective medical device or unsafe drug. We offer a FREE consultation to review your injury and discuss your legal option.

What Is A Mass Tort Claim?

Individuals who have been seriously injured or lost a loved one have a legal right to seek compensation for their personal injuries and losses from the maker of the dangerous product. When many people have been harmed by a widely used product such as a prescription drug or medical device, the litigation may become a mass tort. These claims involve hundreds or thousands of people who have suffered harm from a product that has a defect that makes it unsafe.

When people have suffered the same harm, the injury claims may be combined in a single legal action as part of a class action lawsuit to reduce the number of court cases or certain phases of the litigation involving many claims may be consolidated in multi-district litigation.

Class Action Lawsuits

A class action lawsuit is one type of mass tort litigation. A class action lawsuit may be the most efficient way to pursue a complex medical device injury claim if the legal issues in dispute are the same for all plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Class action lawsuits will vary in scope and approach, depending on claims involved. One plaintiff or a small group of plaintiffs will be chosen to represent all of those who have claims.

Art. 591.  Prerequisites; maintainable class actions

A.  One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all, only if:

(1)  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

(2)  There are questions of law or fact common to the class.

(3)  The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.

(4)  The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(5)  The class is or may be defined objectively in terms of ascertainable criteria, such that the court may determine the constituency of the class for purposes of the conclusiveness of any judgment that may be rendered in the case.  This prerequisite shall not be satisfied if it is necessary for the court to inquire into the merits of each potential class member’s cause of action to determine whether an individual falls within the defined class.

B.  An action may be maintained as a class action only if all of the prerequisites of Paragraph A of this Article are satisfied, and in addition:

(1)  The prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of:

(a)  Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the class, or

(b)  Adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would as a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of the other members not parties to the adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; or

(2)  The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole; or

(3)  The court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.  The matters pertinent to these findings include:

(a)  The interest of the members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions;

(b)  The extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by or against members of the class;

(c)  The desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation in the particular forum;

(d)  The difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a class action;

(e)  The practical ability of individual class members to pursue their claims without class certification;

(f)  The extent to which the relief plausibly demanded on behalf of or against the class, including the vindication of such public policies or legal rights as may be implicated, justifies the costs and burdens of class litigation; or

(4)  The parties to a settlement request certification under Subparagraph B(3) for purposes of settlement, even though the requirements of Subparagraph B(3) might not otherwise be met.

C.  Certification shall not be for the purpose of adjudicating claims or defenses dependent for their resolution on proof individual to a member of the class.  However, following certification, the court shall retain jurisdiction over claims or defenses dependent for their resolution on proof individual to a member of the class.

Acts 1997, No. 839, §1, eff. July 1, 1997; Acts 2013, No. 254, §1.


Multidistric Litigation

Alternately, the injury claims may be handled as multidistrict litigation. When numerous people file lawsuits in federal courts in different states naming the same defendants and alleging similar injuries, the court may centralize the lawsuits in the same U.S. District Court to handle certain pre-trial stages of the litigation more efficiently, such as discovery.

Unlike class action lawsuits, the individual plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation maintain separate lawsuits. However, plaintiffs in MDL litigation may be subject to aggregated settlements in which a set amount of money is allotted to numerous clients based on their injuries.

Defective products such as defective drugs and medical devices are common types of mass tort claims.

Defective Drugs

  • Zofran
  • Eliquis
  • Invokana
  • Proton-pump inhibitors
  • Avandia
  • Pradaxa
  • Darvocet
  • Yasmin / YAZ

Drug manufacturers should be held accountable when their drugs and medications cause serious harm and when they fail to give adequate warning of side effects that they were aware of or should have known would harm to patients. Our firm has handled class action and mass tort lawsuits that include:

Defective Medical Devices And Other Products

Biomedical companies have a legal responsibility to make and market medical devices that are safe when used as intended and to warn adequately of any known dangers that the product may pose. As a patient, you have a right to expect that the artificial joint, surgical mesh or other medical device used in your surgical procedure will work as intended and will not cause you harm. Unfortunately, problems with some medical devices only become known once the products are being used by doctors, surgeons and medical centers. It is usually the case that neither the patient nor the doctor knew of the risk the medical device posed.

For example, both physicians and patients have filed numerous reports with the FDA about injuries and harmful side effects related to surgical mesh used to repair hernias. The complications that have been associated with hernia mesh include pain, infection, shrinkage, the mesh moving inside the patient’s body, mesh adhesion to internal organs and bowel blockages. Some hernia mesh products have been recalled because of injuries to patients.

A patient who has been harmed by a faulty medical product may have to undergo multiple follow-up procedures to remove the defective medical device and implant another medical device. When a manufacturer pushes a new product onto the market that has not been thoroughly tested or fails to warn adequately of the risks of using the product, they should be held accountable for the injuries caused.

Defective Products

The attorneys at Murphy Law Firm will determine if the medical device that caused your injury is currently the focus of a product recall or ongoing litigation. When you meet with an attorney for a free consultation, it is good idea to bring with you any records or information that you have about the type of medical product that caused your injury, including specific brands.

  • Metal on Metal Hip Replacements
  • DePuy ASR Mental-on-Metal Hip
  • DePuy Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal Hip
  • Biomet MOM Hip
  • Wright Medical MOM Hip
  • Hernia Mesh
  • Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Mesh
  • Atrium C-QUR™ Hernia Mesh
  • Transvaginal Mesh Implants
  • Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters

Contact A Product Liability Attorney

Whether you have been harmed financially or physically, you may be eligible to start or join a class action lawsuit or multi district litigation against the manufacturer responsible for your injury. You will want to work with an experienced law firm that has the resources to pursue a defective product investigation wherever it leads. The attorneys at Murphy Law Firm have been involved in both class action and mass tort ligation and are proud of the compensation that we have won for clients. At Murphy Law Firm, we offer a free consultation to people who have questions about product liability and mass tort claims.

Scroll to Top