Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The 2010 DePuy Hip Replacement Recall was instituted when DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, recalled its ASR XL Acetabular metal-on-metal hip replacement system on August 24, 2010. [1] [2]
In the second trial, an Illinois jury returned a verdict in favor of DePuy in a lawsuit brought by a nurse who had sought $5 million in damages. [ 7 ] On June 14, 2012, Johnson & Johnson completed the acquisition of Synthes , which was integrated with the DePuy franchise to establish the DePuy Synthes Companies of Johnson & Johnson. [ 8 ]
Total hip replacement is most commonly used to treat joint failure caused by osteoarthritis.Other indications include rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, traumatic arthritis, protrusio acetabuli, [5] certain hip fractures, benign and malignant bone tumors, [6] arthritis associated with Paget's disease, [7] ankylosing spondylitis [8] and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. [9]
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In August 2010, DePuy recalled its hip replacement systems ASR XL Acetabular Hip Replacement System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System due to failure rates and side effects including metallosis. The recalls triggered a large number of lawsuits against DePuy and its parent company Johnson & Johnson upon claims that the companies knew about the ...
On August 24, 2010, DePuy, a subsidiary of American giant Johnson & Johnson, recalled its ASR (articular surface replacement) hip prostheses from the market. DePuy said the recall was due to unpublished National Joint Registry data showing a 12% revision rate for resurfacing at five years and an ASR XL revision rate of 13%.
A Pennsylvania health care system this month agreed to pay $65 million to victims of a February 2023 ransomware attack after hackers posted nude photos of cancer patients online, according to the ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 569 U.S. 1017 (2013).: Holding; Judgment AFFIRMED. Static Control's alleged injuries—lost sales and damage to its business reputation—fall within the zone of interests protected by the Lanham Act, and Static Control sufficiently alleged that its injuries were proximately caused by Lexmark's ...