Zimmer Holdings Inc., maker of the NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral Component knee replacement device that is the basis of several product liability lawsuits, has embarked on an initiative to discourage further litigation.  Over the past year, the company has sent cease-and-desist letters to several product liability attorneys who had filed lawsuits against the company in relation to the knee replacement device.  According to Zimmer, these attorneys are giving the company a bad reputation through the information they are posting on their websites.

At least seven product liability attorneys who have filed lawsuits based on injuries allegedly resulting from the Zimmer knee replacement devices, have had defamation lawsuits filed against them over the past year alone.  The lawsuits allege not only defamation, but also trademark infringement.  Four of these attorneys have settled the lawsuits and have issued retractions of their statements.  The remaining cases are still pending.

In 2010, at a meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, researchers presented evidence that the NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral Component device has a much higher than average failure rate.  According to the researchers, they analyzed patients who received the knee replacement device, and found that in at least 38% of the patients who received the devices there were signs of device failure, including loosening of the device.

Further, many of the patients who had been implanted with these devices, required revision surgeries.  Researchers said that the results of these studies were serious enough to warrant a recall.

Since then, Zimmer Holdings Inc. has announced recalls of two knee replacement devices, including the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solutions MIS Knee and Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solutions Minimally Invasive Surgery Tibial Components, locking screw and stem extensions.  In 2010, the company recalled the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS femoral component and the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS Flex Gender femoral component.  The company faces dozens of other lawsuits by Zimmer knee replacement recall lawyers, based on injuries that patients have allegedly suffered through the use of these devices.

An unfair trade practices lawsuit against Oscar Mayer Foods alleges that the company intentionally misled consumers about the fat content of its foods through “krafty” labeling on its packaging.

The lawsuit, which was filed in a Miami federal court and also names Oscar Meyer’s parent company, Kraft Foods, alleges that Oscar Mayer Foods deceived customers to make them believe that the fat content of their products is lower than it actually is.  The defendants did this by positioning the “fat-free” percentage next to the calories per serving.

The lawsuit uses Oscar Mayer Deli Fresh Cajun Seasoned Chicken Breast to make a point.  For instance, when the company mentions that this product is 98% fat free and has 50 calories per serving, it does not mean that the 50 calories per serving are 98% fat free with only 2 calories of fat.  According to the lawsuit, such claims are false and misleading, and the chicken breast actually has 10 times the fat calories per serving.

The lawsuit alleges that Oscar Mayer Foods and Kraft Foods violated unfair trade practices laws.  It seeks class-action status for the suit.  It asks the court to require the companies to stop running such false and misleading advertisements about their products.  It also asks the court to order the companies to reimburse people who bought the products.  Attorney fees and legal costs are also included in the damages claimed.

Kraft Foods has denied any wrongdoing in the lawsuit.  According to the company, it stands behind the information contained in its packaging labels, which have been approved by the Department of Agriculture.

False and deceptive advertising can include untrue or misleading statements about the quality, price or any other aspect of a product.  Such practices are illegal under both federal and state laws.  California class action lawyers fear consumers may be lured into buying a product because of such false statements.  Such practices are not only harmful to the consumer who is under the wrong impression, but also competitors who lose business because of these false claims.

A federal judge has cleared the path for a class-action lawsuit against Netflix and Wal-Mart. The lawsuit relates to an alleged conspiracy between Netflix and Wal-Mart to divide the market for online DVD rentals and sales.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that both Netflix and Wal-Mart conspired in 2005 to divide the market for online DVD rentals and sales in order to limit competition. Both companies reached an agreement under which Wal-Mart stopped online DVD rentals, and Netflix stopped online sales of these DVDs.

That agreement emerged soon after Blockbuster began its online DVD rental service. According to the lawsuit, the conspiracy was hatched in 2005, and involved Reed Hustings, the CEO of Netflix, and John Fleming who was then the CEO of Wal-Mart. The two men allegedly discussed ways to reduce competition in the DVD market in the US. The suit claims the two then decided on this plan, and as a result, millions of Netflix subscribers had to pay higher prices.

Wal-Mart has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. According to the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs would be paid up to $40 million in cash or equivalent. That settlement however does not include Netflix. Netflix insists that the case has no merit, and says that it will defend itself. The case against Netflix will now go forward.

A class-action lawsuit is one that involves a number of plaintiffs who have a common complaint against a common entity or person. For plaintiffs, a class-action lawsuit means reduced legal expenses and convenience, because they do not have to actively participate in the class-action lawsuit.  A class action attorney will be appointed to represent the interests of all plaintiffs in the class action suit.

The number of DePuy hip implant lawsuits has mounted, and legal proceedings against DePuy Orthopedics, the manufacturer of the hip implants have been initiated, but what part did the Food and Drug Administration’s controversial fast-track process have to play in these injuries to patients?

Hip recall attorneys have been concerned about the FDA’s fast-track approval process for years now. Known as the 510 (k) process, the procedure allows medical device makers to have their devices approved quicker, if they can prove that the device is similar to another one that has already been approved and is currently on the market. The process was intended to make it easier for the FDA to deal with the vast number of approval applications that it receives every year, but over the years, the process has degenerated into a farce.

The fast track process is meant to be used only when a medical device maker can prove that the device pending approval is similar to one already on the market. Instead, the process has been misused to the extent that now more than 3,000 devices every year are approved through the 510 (k) process.

The DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System and ASR XL Acetabular System were both approved under the fast-track procedure. Thus, DePuy was able to bypass the normal approval system. It managed to do that in spite of the fact that the ASR Hip Resurfacing Systems and the ASR XL Acetabular System were at least a little different from the existing hip implants that were already in the market.

Hundreds of people have now filed lawsuits against DePuy Orthopedics. These people have been suffering serious hip implant complications and pain. The hip implants were supposed to last 20 years, but the rate of revision surgeries over a period of just five years after implantation, has been high.

The reasons for this process may have been valid to begin with, but this rule has been misused and abused several times over by pharmaceutical and device companies.



Over the past several years defective cribs have been released to the public by the following manufacturers:

• Graco
• Child Craft
• C&T International/Sorell
• Simmons
• Million Dollar Baby
• LaJobi
• Jardine
• Evenflo
• Delta
• Pottery Barn Kids

The Heller Law Firm is looking for families who have purchased one of these cribs and would like to be class representative.  The only requirement you need to be a class representative is to have purchased one of these defective cribs.  There are no costs associated with being a class representative and you may even be entitled to some compensation for your time.  If you would like to discuss your options with an experienced attorney, call the Heller Law Firm at 800-992-9947 or visit their website at www.unsafecribs.com.

Good news for people who are frustrated by food and drug companies making claims about their products.

Dannon Yogurt was ordered to pay $45 Million in a Class Action case brought in Federal Court on behalf of Dannon’s customers.  The complaint focused on Dannon’s ACTIVIA and DANACTIVE yogurts that had been advertised as being “clinically” & “scientifically” proven to regulate digestion and boost immune systems.

The Federal Judge ruled that Dannon had not adequately proven their claims.  Besides the monetary damages, Dannon is being ordered to change its labeling and advertising for the products.

At first blush, some observers thought the award amount was high for a “food labeling” class action.  However, when one considers that Dannon sold these yogurts at a 30% higher price than their other products based on the false benefits, it is easy to understand why the courts came down so hard on Dannon.

Consumers who purchased Activia or DanActive in the past two years are entitled to receive settlement payments of between $15-$100.   Payments over $30 will require receipts, but for payments between $15-$30 receipts are not required.

The website allows consumers to enter in the date, location, specific product & cost of their related purchases.   If the total cost is more than $30, then you must submit the receipts.

Related Websites:

Dannon Settlement Website

California Class Action Attorneys