When to say NO to Your Plaintiff’s Advance Request

Did you know that Case Funding is the one of the only lenders in the industry that offers law firm lending, medical funding, and plaintiff advances all under one roof? All three products grew organically from the feedback of PI attorneys on what they need to practice law today. The plaintiff advance is one of them, something all PI attorneys usually can’t avoid. After 15 years of operation in the US, the service has really begun to come of age and experiences both good and bad have been had by the community. In some cases, unscrupulous lenders have burned plaintiffs by doing advances that shouldn’t have been done. Meanwhile others have seen lawsuit funding swoop in and come to the aide of plaintiffs who greatly benefited from the service.

So, how should you respond when your client presents you with an advance request? Here are the top 5 times to say ‘NO’ that other funding companies may not tell you:

#5: When your plaintiff has another means to get the funds they need, say no.

Lawsuit funding companies exist to serve those plaintiffs who have no other options. For plaintiffs who have exhausted all credit/loan options, have no health or other supplemental insurance to cover their expenses, or even relatives willing to help in their time of need, then non-recourse lawsuit funding can serve as their only lifeline. However, because plaintiff advances are non-recourse, they are one of the more expensive options. Why? Fees associated with advances are high to balance the cost of losses – allowing funding companies to keep their doors open. They fill a necessary place to give plaintiffs with no other options a fighting chance against deep pocketed defendants.

#4: When a case is at a very early stage and likely to persist for a substantial period of time, say no.

A plaintiff becomes eligible for lawsuit funding once a complaint has been filed. If you are confident that the case will resolve within a reasonable amount of time, than lawsuit funding may be a good option for your client. However if the case will take many years to decide, then it may be best to wait until the finish line is closer. Fees on a lawsuit advance accumulate monthly and the goal of all parties is to make sure the plaintiff recoups a substantial settlement or judgment amount after their attorney fees and liens have been paid.

#3: If you believe there is a very large settlement range, say no.

Even the shrewdest attorneys have been surprised at the outcome of a case. It comes with the territory Case Funding understands this nature of law practice. This is why non-recourse terms can be a very advantageous feature of the funding service. However, it is also possible to reach a settlement or judgment that is far from expectactions and you and your client may be left with far less than hoped for. If there are factors beyond your reasonable control that you believe make evaluating the dollar amount of the case unclear, then it is better to hold off until there is a clear picture of the timing and outcome of the case.

Case Funding is known as one of the industry’s most conservative funders, and one of the reasons we are is to avoid that ‘way less than expected’ scenario. Each request is reviewed by an attorney underwriter with years of PI experience, and evaluated considering the ‘worst-case’ scenario. We will never approve an advance to a plaintiff where we believe the LTV or ‘loan-to-value’ of the advance is too large to enable the plaintiff a fair compensation at settlement.

#2: If the funding contract seems vague or contradictory, say no.

A good plaintiff advance contract should clearly state the terms and payoff requirements of the funding. Industry leading funders have had established ethical standards and rules that self-regulating funders have  adhered to for years. These standards are publicized and developed most notably by the American Legal Finance Association (ALFA), a 31 member organization. Funders who follow best practices aim to present plaintiffs and their counsel the terms of the agreement in the plainest possible language with clear payoff scenarios. Your client’s contract should clearly show:

  • All fees.
  • An annualized percentage rate.
  • A repayment schedule.

The funding contract used by Case Funding was written with the goal of allowing plaintiff’s attorneys to quickly navigate through the terms and accurately convey them to their clients.

#1: If you suspect your plaintiff will use the funds on non-necessities, say no. 

Lawsuit funding is a great resource available to plaintiffs to make certain the client can remain stabilized during the course of the case. Making mortgage or rent payments, and getting food on the table – these are really the essentials that lawsuit funding exists for. Unfortunately, not all plaintiffs are gifted with a propensity for managing their money. Putting a down payment on a non-essential second car, taking a vacation, or any other item that may increase your client’s monthly living expenses and/or is non-essential should be advised against.

Case Funding offers attorneys ways to help clients avoid financial mistakes with lawsuit funding. For example, if the funds are meant for medical treatment or surgery, Case Funding can make arrangements to pay medical providers directly. If the funds are for living expenses, Case Funding can even make incremental disbursements to your plaintiffs to ensure the money will last as long as it was originally intended to.

Ready to talk to a finance specialist about how Case Funding can help you find the financial programs you need? Fill out the nearby form or call (888)-248-2866.

Case Filings Grow as Two Year Anniversary of Granuflo Recall Looms

litigation financing Case Filings Grow as Two Year Anniversary of Granuflo Recall LoomsMarch 29th marks the two year anniversary for the Granuflo recalls, begun in 2012. Cases for victims who suffered one or multiple catastrophic cardiac events due to the use of the drug, whether they survived or that resulted in the wrongful death of the victim, will have strong cases if filed before the deadline. Currently, Fresenius Medical Care (FMC) is facing more than 515 GranuFlo lawsuits filed on behalf of patients nationwide on the premise of failure to warn. This number is expected to continue to climb in the coming months due to Judge Kirpalani’s recent approval of a Master Complaint and a Short Form Complaint for use in filing new GranuFlo lawsuits.

These new complaint forms were officially approved for use in a Case Management Order issued on December 23, 2013. They are intended to facilitate the filing of new cases, as they explain all of the allegations charged against FMC in the ongoing GranuFlo litigation. Specifically, while the Master Complaint details the various allegations that injured patients have set forth against FMC, the Short Form Complaint is where plaintiffs can specify the nature and extent of their alleged GranuFlo injuries, as well as which allegations from the more in-depth Master Complaint they will be arguing during future trial proceedings.

Solutions for Attorneys with Granuflo Claims

Finance Programs for Awareness Campaigns: Law Firms and Attorneys who are committed to helping victims of GranuFlo and their families and are in need of financing to launch an awareness program before the 3/29 recall anniversary can inquire about Case Funding’s fast-track/low-doc finance program to cover management and advertising expenses related to their campaigns.

Case Cost Funding: Attorneys looking to cover related case expenses for one or many GranuFlo cases (covering costs related to GranuFlo expert witness fees, medical records processing, filing fees, consultation services and more) can talk to our Financing specialist about designing a loan facility for your needs.

Plaintiff Advance Services: Case Funding is an experienced provider of plaintiff advances for victims in need of funds to withstand the course of their case. Talk to a plaintiff advance specialist if you would like to find a dedicated provider of advance services for your GranuFlo plaintiffs.

For more information, complete our form to the right or call 1 (800) 543-4043.

 

Bayer Continues To Settle Yaz/Yasmin/Ocella Cases

litigation financing Bayer Continues To Settle Yaz/Yasmin/Ocella Cases

Bayer AG, manufacturer of Yaz/Yasmin and Ocella

To date, settlements in thousands of Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella cases have been reached and it is estimated that Bayer, the drug manufacturer, has paid out over $1 Billion to more than 6,000 injured women across the country, for an average of approximately $209,000 per plaintiff.  Of course, this number will vary depending on the severity of each plaintiff’s injuries.

It has been claimed that the birth control pill (commonly known as Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella) causes blood clotting issues as well as gallbladder injuries.  For gallbladder injuries, which Bayer maintains is not linked to the drug, a settlement has been reached whereby plaintiffs could receive $2,000 for a documented injury and $3,000 for those who have had their gallbladder removed.  There are reports that indicate that this settlement will be capped at $24 Million.

As aforementioned, the cases involving blood clots, are settling for much higher amounts.  There are three types of injuries (linked to blood clotting) that Bayer is currently settling.  They include Pulmonary Embolism, Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) and/or stroke.  While Bayer continues to settle on a case by case basis, there is no indication that settlement amounts will vary from what we have seen to date.  Women suffering any of these injuries can still bring a claim against Bayer and may want to seek immediate legal advice.

As one can only imagine, women around the country have been seriously affected, both physically and financially.  In an effort to relieve some of the financial strain caused by these sometimes debilitating injuries, Case Funding has, and continues to provide financial assistance to those injured.

Cash Advance for product liability:

If you or a loved has been injured, has a lawyer and a product liability claim, you may be eligible for a pre-settlement cash advance from Case Funding Inc. Money is available in the form of a cash advance – it is not a loan, and the funds can be used for any type of living expenses, rent and car payments or for medical treatment.

Our Services – Pre-Settlement Lawsuit Funding

Call Case Funding now at (800) 543-4043 to speak to a lending specialist for a FREE no obligation evaluation to see how much money you may be eligible to receive. There are no up-front fees, no credit checks and no monthly payments. If you lose your case, you owe NOTHING!

Case Funding Inc. is a New York based specialty finance company and industry leader in providing litigation funding solutions to attorneys, law firms and personal injury and product liability victims. Case Funding also purchases and factors medical liens. Working capital loans enable attorneys to invest in their cases and to pay for items such as expert witnesses and litigation support costs, operating expenses, business development and marketing campaigns and better manage cash flow overall. Selling medical liens allows medical providers to immediately improve their cash flow, reduce overhead and eliminate bad debt risk. Plaintiffs can receive funding for personal and other living expenses while they wait for their case to settle.

FMCSA Audit Could Create New Challenges for PI Attorneys

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) may soon be facing an audit of its programs and oversight capabilities that could uncover some serious flaws in the agency’s regulation of the trucking industry. Since many personal injury lawyers rely on the FMCSA’s regulations and ratings to establish when trucking companies may have been negligent, any problems that are uncovered in this audit could have significant repercussions on how truck accident lawyers build and litigate their cases in the future.

The audit, which has yet to be approved by the U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, has been recommended by officials at the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). This recommendation was specifically made in the wake of four fatal truck accidents that collectively killed 25 people and injured 83 others within the past year.

The NTSB Investigation

According to officials at the NTSB, “safety deficiencies and noted red flags had been present [at the responsible trucking companies] prior to the crashes.” While the red flags went unnoticed by FMCSA officials in some cases, in others, the FMCSA had noted the red flags but failed to take action to rectify them. In fact, in their preliminary investigations, NTSB officials had found that, in some cases, trucking companies that had been operating poorly and had been violating numerous federal regulations were given “Satisfactory” ratings and allowed to keep operating – and to ultimately be responsible for causing fatal truck accidents.

Some of the specific red flags that were uncovered by the NTSB’s investigations into the four trucking companies responsible for the above-mentioned fatal accidents included:

  • Hours-of-service violations (including falsifying trucking logs and keeping two logs)
  • Use of tires not rated for highway operation
  • Defective brakes
  • Failing numerous roadside vehicle inspections

These findings have led NTSB officials to question the “thoroughness and quality” of the FMCSA’s compliance reviews and to question the agency’s methods of only focusing on a discrete sector of trucking carriers’ operations.

Is the FMCSA Living Up to Its Mission?

In one of our recent blogs[1], we raised similar questions regarding the FMCSA’s performance and whether it’s living up to its stated purpose of “saving lives and reducing injuries by preventing and minimizing the severity of truck and bus crashes.” While that discussion had found that the FMCSA’s efforts had led to a reduction in the number of fatal truck accidents that have occurred over the past decade, those numbers were generated by the FMCSA – not a third party – and, as a result, could be suspect.

As a possible FMCSA audit threatens to take a tough look at the agency’s policies and practices, Case Funding will continue reporting on how this audit could affect federal trucking regulations and oversight, as well as personal injury lawyers and their clients.

Case Funding Provides Financial Support to Uninsured Motor Vehicle Accident Victims

We offer medical and surgical funding programs to assist car and truck wreck victims who don’t have adequate health insurance to pay for medical procedures relating to injuries sustained in their automobile accident.  Leveraging its existing medical funding programs and its sponsorship of Association of Plaintiffs Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America (APITLA), Case Funding Inc. has been able to provide financial support to a growing population of motor vehicle accident victims and their families in desperate need of medical care.

Case Funding is providing a very important service to the clients of our membership – one that is not available to them now and is desperately needed” according to Dan Ramsdell, founder and president of APITLA.  “We are thrilled to have Case Funding Inc. as one of our premier sponsors”.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) reported that there were 5,338,000 police-reported traffic accidents and 2,217,000 traffic related injuries in the US and 32,367 traffic-related fatalities, which is a 2 percent decrease from 2010. 89 people died each day in motor vehicle accidents each day on average.

Case Funding Inc. can provide financing to uninsured or underinsured accident victims that can be to pay for medical care relating to injuries sustained in their motor vehicle, car and truck accident.

We are proud of the fact that we help individuals get the medical care they need” proclaims Richard Silverstein President and CEO of Case Funding Inc.  “We have been able to help out hundreds of individuals since we began this program and the list is growing every day.”

Through Case Funding’s work with APITLA and it lawyer membership base, more victims have become aware of it services and more sufferers have been assisted.

J&J Will Propose a $4 Billion DePuy Hip Implant Settlement for Injured Plaintiffs

litigation financing J&J Will Propose a $4 Billion DePuy Hip Implant Settlement for Injured Plaintiffs Johnson & Johnson manufacturer of DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products will reportedly propose a $4 billion DePuy hip implant settlement to resolve more than 7,500 lawsuits that have been filed against the company in both state and federal courts, according to sources connected to the deal. These sources have chosen to remain anonymous because the official announcement of this settlement is expected to occur sometime next week in a federal court in Toledo, Ohio, where it will await approval from U.S. District Judge David Katz. Judge Katz is overseeing federal DePuy litigation (In re DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 10-MD-2197).

Terms of the Settlement

Once officially proposed, the multi-billion dollar settlement will mark the largest settlement for a medical device in U.S. history. According to the terms of the settlement, however, at least 94 percent of the plaintiffs must agree to accept the offer – otherwise, Johnson & Johnson may pull this settlement offer off the table. If that happens, all of the cases would proceed to trial.

It’s important to point out that the proposed $4 billion DePuy hip implant settlement is uncapped, which means that it would allow future plaintiffs to file claims against Johnson & Johnson to seek compensation for alleged DePuy complications. Additionally, this settlement offer is not associated with the approximately 4,500 DePuy hip implant lawsuits that will be handled in a second round of litigation; these remaining cases pertain to plaintiffs who may need future revision surgery.

According to the sources, the plaintiffs who choose to accept Johnson & Johnson’s settlement offer will, on average, receive payouts of about $300,000. The precise amount of the payouts to each plaintiff will specifically depend on the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries, the plaintiff’s age and the number of revision surgeries the plaintiff had to undergo as a result of his hip implant complications.

As additional news of this groundbreaking settlement offer becomes available, Case Funding Inc. will continue reporting on how it may impact the plaintiffs in these cases.

Lawsuits Allege Serious Hip Implant Complications 

To date, about 12,000 DePuy hip implant lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in the U.S. These cases all generally contend that Johnson & Johnson failed to conduct adequate safety testing on the DePuy hip implants and that the company was aware of the implants’ significant rates of failure and, yet, failed to sufficiently warn the public about them.

In fact, while some research has indicated that the DePuy hip implants have a failure rate of about 12 percent within 5 years of implantation; copies of some of Johnson & Johnson’s internal documents that have been obtained by the plaintiffs reveal that the company was aware of a failure rate of about 37 percent within 4.6 years of implantation.

As such reports became public, in 2010; Johnson & Johnson issued a worldwide recall of its DePuy hip implants, which affected a total of 93,000 units – with about 37,000 of these being in the U.S.

About Case Funding Inc.

Case Funding Inc. is a New York City and Nevada based specialty finance lender and industry leader in providing litigation financing to attorneys, law firms and personal injury and product liability victims. Case Funding also finances medical procedures for injury victims who are underinsured or who do not have medical insurance at all. Working capital loans enable attorneys to invest in their cases and to pay for expert witnesses and litigation support costs, operating expenses, and business development and marketing campaigns and to better manage their cash flow overall.

Case Funding factors and purchases medical liens from doctors, surgery centers and radiology centers. Selling or factoring medical liens allows medical providers to immediately improve their cash flow, reduce overhead and eliminate bad debt risk. Plaintiffs can receive funding for personal and other living expenses while their case is pending keeping them from being pressured into settling their case for less than its full value.

To learn more about our various legal funding solutions, call our legal finance specialists at (800) 543-4043. You can also email us using the form at the top right-hand side of the screen.

 

Johnson & Johnson Failed to Warn of Talc Powder Link to Ovarian Cancer

Jury Links Commonly Used Talc Powder To Ovarian Cancer

litigation financing Johnson & Johnson Failed to Warn of Talc Powder Link to Ovarian CancerA federal jury has found that talcum contained in Johnson & Johnson powder products contributed to a woman’s ovarian cancer.  The jury found on that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn consumers of the link between ovarian cancer and the use of talc-based body powder for feminine hygiene.

Deane Berg, a resident of Sioux Falls, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2006, filed the lawsuit. The 56-year-old berg used talcum-based products for hygiene purposes for about 30 years, including J&J’s shower to shower body powder.

Attorney R. Allen Smith, Jr., one of Berg’s lawyers, said his client never would have used the products in the manner she did if she had seen a warning.  “The first time she heard about the risk was after her diagnosis,” Smith said.  Smith of Ridgeland, Mississippi, filed the very first talcum ovarian cancer lawsuit in 2009.

The verdict comes shortly after the Mississippi Attorney General’s office launched an investigation into Johnson & Johnson’s promotion of talcum powder products used for feminine hygiene.

The jury did not award Berg monetary damages nor did it agree that Johnson & Johnson’s products are defective without a warning label

Medical Studies Link Talcum Powder to Cancer Risk

A recent study conducted by Dr. Margaret A. Gates and funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health, focused on talc ovarian cancer, found a 36-41% increase in ovarian cancer related to use of talc.  The study advised women to immediately stop using the product.

A June report published in the medical journal cancer prevention research, and based on data collected covering about 2,000 women, found that women who use powder containing talc may have a 20% to 30% greater risk of ovarian cancer.

Medical Experts Testify

Mr. Smith is working with the two of the foremost medical experts on the subject of talc and ovarian cancer (Daniel Cramer, MD and John Godieski, MD).  Dr. Cramer, who has studied the connection between talc and cancer for 30 years told jurors that talc probably was a contributing factor in 10,000 cases of ovarian cancer each year.

Doctors analyzed berg’s cancer tissue, found talc using a scanning electron microscope and concluded that body powder was the cause.

Attorneys To Expand Talc Related Cancer Investigation

This talcum powder lawsuit may be first of many other talc related cancer lawsuits that are to be investigated and filed by attorney Smith and his associated group, the Talc Litigation Group.

Talc Products Affected

Numerous other talc products are impacted by the lawsuit;

•Johnson’s ® baby powder
•Shower to Shower® absorbent body powder
•and all other talcum powder products.

What Do I Do If I Think I May Have Been Injured?

Regardless of where you live, you should contact a lawyer with a track record in this complex litigation to review your case and ensure that you are properly evaluated by a qualified medical expert.

How Do I Find A Lawyer And Medical Expert?

Attorney Smith said the verdict is a validation of the idea that the consumer ought to be allowed to decide for themselves.  “Hopefully, this will force Johnson & Johnson to put a warning label on their products,” Allen said.

His firm and their associated Talc Litigation Group are representing clients throughout the United States.

How Can I Finance Medical Care and Other Expenses During The Span of my Talc Lawsuit?

Case Funding has not opened funding to talc related cases at this time. However, plaintiffs who would like to be alerted of funding eligibility for talc cases can sign up for our waitlist by calling 1-800-543-4043 or by completed the form to the right.

Resolution for DePuy ASR Cases Still Far Down the Road

litigation financing Resolution for DePuy ASR Cases Still Far Down the RoadAs many already know, over 10,000 lawsuits have been field across the country against Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of the Depuy ASR model hip.  This particular model, which had been recalled in July, 2010, has a relatively high failure rate, causing severe and sometimes debilitating injuries to those with the implant.

While there are several Bellwether cases scheduled for trial over the next several months, a case in California, slated for trial in mid-October, settled for an undisclosed amount.  This is just one of several cases that have settled prior to trial.  To date, two cases have been tried resulting in a plaintiff’s verdict in excess of $1 Million, and the other, a defense verdict.

It is has been widely rumored that Johnson & Johnson has been discussing settling the ASR cases for approximately $3 Billion, which would average about $300,000 per plaintiff. It remains unknown if Johnson & Johnson will first look to take another case or two to trial before seriously discussing the settlement.  Presumably, if J&J is successful at trial, it could further delay any settlement, or significantly reduce the amounts being discussed.  On the flip side, if J&J loses at trial, the potential settlement amounts being discussed could increase, or at the very least, could force the matters to settle sooner than later.

Case Funding continues to provide assistance to those in financial distress, mainly due to the delays in these cases.  Plaintiff’s had hoped for a 2013 resolution to the ASR hip cases, but it is looking more and more like they will have to wait until the middle or end of 2014 before any resolution is reached. 

Attorneys and plaintiffs seeking financing based on a Depuy ASR metal-on-metal hip case should contact a Case Funding Legal Finance Specialist at 800-543-4043.

Legal Financing Expands for the Medtronic Inc. Infuse Bone Graft

litigation financing Legal Financing Expands for the Medtronic Inc. Infuse Bone Graft

Financing programs have been officially launched for the Medtronic Inc. Infuse Bone Graft for attorney loans and plaintiff advances related to Medtronic Infuse cases.

Last week Case Funding announced that Medtronic Inc. Sprint Fidelis cases would be considered as well as part of our funding expansion. The Medtronics Infuse Bone Graft is a device used primarily in certain spinal surgeries and is intended to foster bone growth.  The product received FDA approval in 2002, but only for use with anterior lumbar fusion surgeries.  In 2004, it was approved for use with Tibia repairs, and in 2007 approved for use with certain dental procedures.

Over the last several years, Medtronics has faced numerous allegations, even from the Department of Justice, suggesting that Medtronics violated the False Claims Act.  It has been alleged, and so much as reported in the “Spine Journal” that Medtronic’s was paying various Doctors to right favorable post-market studies. Medtronics settled an action brought by the DOJ this past Summer for $23.5 Milllion.

One of the more pressing concerns with the Infuse is the allegation that Medtronics marketed the device for off-label use in other spinal surgeries, for which the FDA had never approved. One of the more egregious examples is that of a California women who had the device implanted in her neck.  Within days of the surgery, the women’s neck swelled and caused her breathing problems.  She ultimately slipped into a vegetative state and died.  According to reports, the family of the women stated that sales representative from Medtronic’s was present in the operating room and so much as recommended the device be placed in her neck (Nisbet et al. v. Medtronic Inc. et al., case number 8:08-cv-01361, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California). There is some research that suggests Medtronics withheld information pertaining to the side effects and damages involved with the Infuse product.

Given the unique injuries suffered by so many plaintiffs, a class action is unlikely to be seen.  However, it appears to be a matter of time before some consolidated action is taken, likely in the form of a Multi District Litigation (MDL).  It remains unseen as to how Medtronics will handle these claims, given the intense public scrutiny they are currently under by the Senate Finance Committee, who is investigating alleged kickbacks given to Doctors who were supposed to research the products efficiency and side effects.  Such side effects are now known to include several types of cancer, uncontrolled bone growth, cysts, nerve/bone injuries and even sterility in men.

For more information on Medtronic Inc. Infuse case funding, call toll free at 800-543-4043.

Case Funding offers this information of its services for the review and use of experienced legal and financial professionals only. Case Funding offers no claims, promises, guarantees or advice on legal proceedings – plaintiffs and attorneys are advised to consult with an experienced professional before engaging Case Funding for services.  

First California DePuy ASR Bellwether Trial Settles

litigation financing First California DePuy ASR Bellwether Trial Settles After indicating willingness to create a settlement fund of over $3 billion in August to settle DePuy ASR hip claims, DePuy has settled in the first bellwether trial in a consolidated litigation in California in San Francisco. DePuy is also facing a consolidation of lawsuits in the Northern District of Ohio, and in a New Jersey state multi-county litigation.

The first California trial was scheduled to begin in October, but DePuy has reached a settlement agreement with plaintiff Robert Ottman, the terms of which are confidential (Ottman v. Johnson & Johnson Services). Consumers using DePuy’s ASR hip implants complain that the metal-on-metal hip is defective because it releases metal into the body, causing metal poisoning. DePuy’s willingness to settle in this case could lead to larger settlement agreements with remaining plaintiffs.

The first trial in the Ohio MDL has been set aside by Judge Katz in order to allow additional discovery so that both sides are fully prepared to present their cases. As per Judge Katz’s order, the trial should restart in January. The first trials in Bergen County New Jersey are set to begin on October 21.

Bellwether trials are selected to be representative of the consolidated cases, and to provide a test run of the facts and legal theories underlying the cases. The results of bellwether trials provide a backdrop to help lead to settlements in the remaining consolidated cases, so the results of bellwether trials can have a significant impact in other pending cases.

Attorneys and plaintiffs seeking financing based on a Depuy ASR metal-on-metal hip case should contact a Case Funding Legal Finance Specialist at 800-543-4043.

Broker Bulletin: Medtronic Inc. Cases Now Accepted!

litigation financing Broker Bulletin: Medtronic Inc. Cases Now Accepted!Case Funding Inc. is pleased to offer funding for Medtronic Inc. cases to our loyal brokers.

Funding criteria for Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator and Infuse Bone Graft Cases is listed below.

To submit a Medtronic Inc. case, speak with our broker liaison, Derek Sonderfan, at  888-294-1007 or email brokers@casefunding.com.

Product: Medtronic Sprint Fidelis Defibrillators
Model No.’s: 6930; 6931; 6948; 6949
Injuries: Vary from pre-mature shocking, or failure to trigger shock during heart attack.
Requirements: Case must fall into categories above; Client must be represented and Case must be filed.

In October, 2010, Medtronics, the manufacturer of the Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator settled the class action lawsuit for $268M, which according to most reports, should average out to $33,000 per plaintiff.  Of course, depending on the injury, the award could be much greater.

CaseFunding, Inc. will be considering plaintiff advances or attorney loans for these specific cases only (those with the recalled model Number above).  Plaintiff’s must be represented and the case must have been filed.

Product: Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft
Injuries: Infection, bone and/or nerve damage; urinary problems.
Requirements: Product must have been used only for Anterior Lumbar Fusion surgery; surgery for tibia fractures/repair, or dental repair (jaw bone). Product must be name brand (NO OFF LABEL PRODUCTS).

The Medtronics Infuse Bone Graft is a device used primarily in certain spinal surgeries and is intended to foster bone growth.  The product received FDA approval in 2002, but only for use with anterior lumbar fusion surgeries.  In 2004, it was approved for use with Tibia repairs, and in 2007 approved for use with certain dental procedures.

Over the last several years, Medtronics has faced numerous allegations, even from the Department of Justice, suggesting that Medtronics violated the False Claims Act.  It has been alleged, and so much as reported in the “Spine Journal” that Medtronic’s was paying various Doctors to write favorable post-market studies. Medtronics settled an action brought by the DOJ this past Summer for $23.5 Milllion.

One of the more pressing concerns with the Infuse is the allegation that Medtronics marketed the device for off-label use in other spinal surgeries, for which the FDA had never approved. There is some research that suggests Medtronics withheld information pertaining to the side effects and damages involved with the Infuse product. A class action is unlikely to be seen however, it appears to be a matter of time before some consolidated action is taken, likely in the form of a Multi District Litigation (MDL).