We focus on healing first
We help you get the proper treatment, help you understand how it will be paid for, and then we focus on what the value of the claim is.
We help you get the proper treatment, help you understand how it will be paid for, and then we focus on what the value of the claim is.
Inserra | Kelley | Cooper | Sewell, Injury Attorneys are ready to help. Call us at 800.642.1242 today.
Inserra | Kelley | Cooper | Sewell, Injury Attorneys have been in Omaha over 60 years. Our team has the experience you need to get the results you deserve.
INSERRA KELLEY COOPER SEWELL is a litigation and trial practice law firm dedicated to representing injured plaintiffs and enforcing the laws that hold wrongdoers and their insurance companies responsible for the harm inflicted upon our clients and their families.
“Focused On Healing, Then Results,” is a commitment we make to all of our clients. We help and guide our clients step-by-step through the initial injury, the pain and uncertainty of the healing process, and complications caused by medical bills, lost wages, and the insurance claims procedure. After all injuries have been properly documented and treated, we shift our focus to obtaining the maximum financial result from the wrongdoer’s insurance company.
INSERRA KELLEY COOPER SEWELL has the experience and skill set to promptly and professionally resolve all types of serious and catastrophic injury claims. When you hire INSERRA KELLEY COOPER SEWELL you can be assured you will receive the following:
Smith & Nephew Hip Implant Complications May Entitle You to Compensation
On June 1, 2012, Smith & Nephew initiated a voluntary worldwide recall of the metal liner in its R3 Acetabular System hip after a series of reports of loosening, pain, device failure, infection, metal sensitivity and dislocation in the hip replacement system. Smith & Nephew is a London-based medical device manufacturer and the fourth largest manufacturer of hip implants in the United States. The R3 Acetabular System was launched in the United States in 2009 and by 2012, over 7,700 devices had been implanted worldwide. Unfortunately, the device experienced a higher than normal revision rate, with less than satisfactory clinical results as a total hip replacement device. The device was marketed as durable and wear-resistant, however many of the implants have failed prematurely.
The Smith & Nephew R3 Acetabular System was alleged to have a design defect. The implants have a metal liner made of cobalt and chromium, which release ions into the body. These ions can cause tissue damage, destroy muscle and bone, and spread to other organs. Cobalt also can cause heart muscle disease and bone or muscle deterioration around the implant. As the muscles and bone deteriorate, the implants can loosen and cause the device to fail. The complications can lead to metal poisoning as well.
Since the 2012 recall, numerous design defect and failure to warn lawsuits have been filed to compensate patients for actual medical cost, future medical expenses, loss of earnings and pain and suffering in the form of monetary compensation. If you or a loved one has experienced device failure or complications from a Smith & Nephew R3 Acetabular System, you may be entitled to compensation and should have your case evaluated by a legal representative knowledgeable about these types of cases.
Do Men and Women Have Different Outcomes in Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries?
A recent IMPACT study to evaluate Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) outcomes has disclosed that while age, race and education are all associated with outcomes, gender does not. The IMPACT study analyzed Glasgow Outcome Scores at six months post moderate-to-severe TBI injuries. Although past studies reported female outcomes with higher initial Glasgow Coma Scores and longer durations of post-traumatic amnesia, they also demonstrated equal Glasgow Outcome Scales post-rehabilitation. At one year post-injury, women showed better memory and language skills, while men demonstrated better visual analytic skills.
Gender differences with respect to injury, illness and outcome are not necessarily unique to TBI. Several studies have shown decreased incidence of ischemic stroke in females, both in human work and experimental models. In patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, favorable outcomes were shown to be significantly better for females versus males at the 3 month follow up period and mortality was found to be significantly lower in one randomized clinical trial.
A 2010 study of Cornell University and Mount Sinai School of Medicine revealed that woman scored significantly higher than men on a test of visual memory after mile to severe traumatic brain damages. Still, overall cognitive outcomes after Traumatic Brain Injuries does not differ according to gender, with the possible exception of memory functioning.
Serious Complications of Transvaginal Mesh in Over 11,000 Cases
Every surgery has risks, but complications with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI) complications have caused serious injuries to thousands of patients. According to the FDA, over 1,000 cases have emerged in the last three years, however there are over 11,000 cases pending against numerous companies. Complications can include erosion through vaginal epithelium, infection, pain, urinary problems, and recurrence of prolapse and/or incontinence. Complications during insertion could also include bowel, bladder and blood vessel perforation during insertion.
Treatment of complications can include IV therapy, blood transfusions, drainage of hematomas or abscesses and even surgical revision surgeries to remove the mesh.
Several companies are facing thousands of lawsuits over the transvaginal mesh devices in state and federal courts, as well as in Canada. One company, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has agreed to pay $54.5 million to settle some of the North American lawsuits and announced the settlement in a regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In 2010, approximately 300,000 women underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, with roughly one in three using mesh. Approximately 260,000 women underwent surgery for stress urinary incontinence, 80 percent of which involved transvaginal mesh in 2010. More lawsuits are expected to be filed in the coming years.
In 2012, jurors in Bakersfield California awarded $3.6 million in the first case over vaginal mesh devices. They found the plaintiff and her husband were entitled to a total of $5.5 million due to medical expenses, pain, suffering and other damages resulting from her injuries.
In February, a jury awarded a South Dakota woman $3.35 million in compensation for her vaginal mesh lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and an additional $7.76 million in punitive damages. Her lawsuit was based on failure to warn and product misrepresentation and was the first verdict of the vaginal mesh lawsuits, alleging the product was defective in “design, manufacture, warnings and instructions”. Her injuries led to 18 operations to repair the damage caused by the use of vaginal mesh. Many other trials are scheduled against various manufactures over the next year that will set the parameters for future vaginal mesh settlements.
Patients who have experienced transvaginal mesh side effects may be entitled to compensation and should have their case evaluated by a legal representative knowledgeable about vaginal mesh cases as soon as possible since these cases have time limits which could bar claims not made in a timely fashion.
Is Flashing Your Headlights Protected by the First Amendment?
Have you ever warned another motorist approaching a speed trap by flashing your lights? A driver in Ellisville, MO did and was ticketed for improper flashing of signals. He chose to fight the ticket and refused to plead guilty, causing the Judge to ask him if he had heard of obstruction of justice. Although the case was eventually dropped, the driver brought a civil rights lawsuit alleging that the act of flashing headlights constituted a form of protected speech.
In the face of ongoing public outrage over decreased privacy, this case alleged that the communication of flashing your lights was protected by the First Amendment. The driver is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, who claims this type of communication is no different than communicating the same message by radio or at a local gas station.
Other states have previously addressed this issue. Tennessee and Utah have sided with drivers and in Florida, a state law was passed to ban prosecutions for flashing headlights. Do you agree this rises to the level of free speech, or is it obstruction of justice to warn other drivers of impending speed traps ahead?
Are You Aware of the Risks of Your Generic Medications?
Thanks to a Petition submitted by Public Citizen to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a change may be coming in generic drug labeling. At the present time, FDA regulations prohibit generic manufacturer’s from updating a product’s safety label too efficiently, creating a safety gap, as potential health risks may not be available to the public on a timely basis.
The new proposed rule would allow the safety information to be disclosed to the public while the FDA reviews the information. With the current rule, generic or prescription name brand drugs can be on the market for several years before serious safety hazards are discovered, leading to doubts about whether the amount of time a drug has been on the market has anything to do with the safety of the drug. Unfortunately, generic drugs, with lower prices, usually cause manufacturers to stop producing the name-brand drug, making the manufacturer less informed about the latest hazards of each drug.
In 2009, the Supreme Court issued a ruling which allowed people who are hurt by a brand-name drug to sue the manufacturer for damages. However, in June of 2013, the Supreme Court issued an opinion stating an injured person does not have the right to sue for damages caused by the design of a generic drug. Coupled with the 2011 Supreme Court decision that shielded generic manufacturers from lawsuits regarding improper labeling, an injured person has almost no recourse if the damages were caused by a generic drug. The one exception to the rule would be for a company that has a flaw in its manufacturing process. There is a small group of Senators who have proposed changing the FDA regulations so consumers are able to sue for damages caused by generic drugs. Unfortunately, due to the recent Supreme Court rulings, there is currently very little accountability for generic drug companies.