Stryker Lawsuit Settlement

The Alago Procedure and Philadelphia Case

Philadelphia Personal Injury Attorney Thomas Anapol was instrumental in negotiating yet another stryker lawsuit settlement. This time, a global agreement for stryker rejuvenate failing ABG and stroke implant surgeries was announced by Superior Court Judge Brian R. Karr. This settlement, which is expected to be in the millions of dollars, is the second such major court case regarding this type of surgery performed by Dr. Steven Teitelbaum, the former orthopedic surgeon. In June, 2012, an agreement was reached in which the doctors would share monetary and intellectual rights for the future use of their patient’s case for financial purposes.

Philadelphia PA Judge Brian R. Martinotti approved the agreement between the doctors and the patients in this stroke lawsuit settlement. The terms of this agreement are being held in abeyance pending approval by the state’s Supreme Court. The agreement also includes financial benefits for the victims and their families. The hospital and insurance company will share profits, as well.

Philadelphia PA resident David R. Strawser, now a proud father of two, was one of the many victims of a failed hip replacement. He pursued a lawsuit against Dr. Steven Teitelbaum, who was the chief medical specialist and surgeon in charge of the surgical unit at Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City. Dr. Strawser’s suit claimed that the doctor, while operating on him in November of 2009, caused him “severe, permanent, disabling injuries,” which continued to affect his life even months later. Dr. Strawser’s attorney, Robert S. Kaplan, believes that the negligence of this surgeon and other employees at the Mt. Sinai Medical Center caused the death of David Strawser, and that this negligence was the basis for the original Stryker lawsuit settlement against Dr. Teitelbaum.

In the initial Stryker lawsuit settlement, the court awarded $1.75 million to David Strawser, but at that time the court set a base award for the future earning potential of plaintiffs. As per the terms of the agreement, if the base award is less than the future expected future net proceeds of plaintiffs, then the party providing the settlement gets nothing. However, if the base award is greater than or equal to the future net proceeds of plaintiffs then the settlement recipient gets the enhanced amount. Essentially, the settlement structured this way allows the plaintiff’s future earning potential be properly considered, including monetary gains related to the failed hip implant treatment.

Today, the Philadelphia PA judge, Brian R. Martinotti, has modified the initial ruling in the Stryker case by allowing plaintiffs to receive payment from the “bellwether” trials even if they have already been compensated by a prior settlement due to the Bellwether trials. Although the Philadelphia court allowed plaintiffs to recover up to two-hundred and fifty dollars for each year of pain and suffering, it is believed that the lower figure in the current lawsuit settlement agreement may be an attempt by the defense to avoid paying past and future settlements during the trial. Moreover, while the Philadelphia court allowed a jury to be instructed to multiply the future expected payouts in a separate post-trial hearing as part of its findings of fact, the defense has always opposed any post-trial enhancement of the compensation due the plaintiff.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court’s failure to allow an expert witness to testify regarding the dangers of a defective Alago HIP-based hip replacement lawsuit appliance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Also entitled to a large measure of discovery favorable to their cause, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in allowing testimony regarding the dangers of a “slip resistant, leak proof” HIP-based hip replacement case. The Alago HIP is one of the most common styles of defective surgical devices in use in the country. Additionally, the Philadelphia court found that the trial court failed to provide the requisite evidentiary support in light of the fact that the Alago HIP was a well-known design that had been adopted by thousands of hospitals worldwide, including some of the nation’s biggest medical and nursing institutions. Finally, plaintiffs argue that a number of physicians, surgeons, and hospital administrators have indicated to the Philadelphia court that they would not recommend the use of the Alago HIP in their respective clinics due to the numerous safety concerns that have been identified with the Alago device.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *