Judge dismisses lawsuits in Medtronic heart device case

  • Article by: JANET MOORE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 6, 2009 - 10:47 AM

A ruling by a federal judge dismisses dozens of complaints filed by patients claiming they were injured by the defective Medtronic heart product.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
cleftrockJan. 6, 09 1:16 PM

The US Supreme court is wrong. The FDA approves reviewed devices that operate as advertised...not DEFECTIVE ones. A defective device by definition is one that is made to a set of specifications, but for whatever reason, fails because of some unforseen and unintentional defect. There is no way the FDA can be expected to act as psychics and soothsayers, and no way to pin the responsibility for quality control of a device on them. By putting it on the FDA, that means people will be forced to file claims against the government, and ultimately, the American Taxpayer.....and the company with the poor quality control gets to walk away.... Once again, the Supreme court making law instead of interpreting it.

2
4
jeannie184Jan. 6, 09 1:49 PM

that you put it that way cleftrock... where as I see it as this... nothing man made is EVER 100% guaranteed. Period. Patients are told this before deciding to be implanted with the device. (Yes, it IS the patients decision) If they were not told, it would be the doctors fault. Also.... you must remember these devices ARE doctor regulated as well. in other words, if the doctor does not take the companies advice on HOW to implant these devices, it should not be the companies fault for his negligence in NOT listening to the makers of the device he/she is using. These medical companies test and test and research and test some more. They KNOW the best way to use their product. Too bad some doctors think they are God and think they know better then the company who worked for YEARS to make sure the device or tool is safe.. only to have a know it all doctor use it in a way the company didn't tell them to. this goes for every single tool the medical field uses. I have seen it many many times, they do not listen to the companies and do it 'their' way. Ultimately, the patient is the one to suffer, unfortunately, nobody cares.

1
2
runotkiddingJan. 6, 09 2:53 PM

It is a shame that the plaintiffs' lawyers have done so much to retard the development of good medical products and drugs in this country. We should them personally liable for injuries resulting from delayed or forgone medical innovations in the same way they seek to hold medical companies liable.

0
0
obvious2meJan. 6, 09 5:35 PM

you'd feel the same way if one of your kids had a "FDA approved" medical device implanted in his or her body -- which delivered excruciatingly painful shocks -- before it failed altogether (leading to the death of your child). I don't know about you, but I'm against losing my right to file a claim just because our government "signed off" on the product. If the device was not faulty, let the manufacturer prove it in court (just like in any other negligence case). Same old story -- you hate plaintiffs' lawyers -- until YOU need one.

1
1
dakmarkJan. 6, 09 7:00 PM

Another snipe hunt by a blood sucking attorney comes up empty handed.

0
0
jillganzJan. 6, 09 7:06 PM

jeannie how dare you blame the patient. We act on what we are told. You have no idea what we were told. FDA approval. They only know what was put on paper and told. Did Medtronic let the FDA know that they changed the wire to a smaller one? Which wire was approved? The lead wire was bad bottom line. I was shocked 9 times. No I wasn't running around as soon as it hit me I laid down flat like I was instructed to do.Everytime the EMT's moved me it went off. When the first warning had come out 2 people had died from it. That is how it was found out to be bad

0
2
jillganzJan. 6, 09 7:17 PM

Have your ever been shocked by a cattle prod or kicked in the chest by a horse. How can you blame the patient who is acting on only what has been told to them? There is way more to this then the article is saying. I'm one of them. So don't condemn anyone.

0
2
rcktsciJan. 6, 09 8:38 PM

So why are these people getting device implanted in the first place? I can’t imagine going to the doctor and asking to get an implant of any sort. I would only do it if my life depended on it. OOOO that might be the reason, so why are people complaining, they are living on borrowed time. I am guessing with out it they could have easily been dead the first time the device worked. The company should offer a refund and get their junk back. See how long these people would live without it. People should be happy that we have medical science, if we didn’t a lot of people would be dying at a lot younger age.

0
0
test0001Jan. 6, 0911:03 PM

People need to understand that Just because a device fails does not mean it is defective, nor does it mean the company was negligent. Likewise, FDA approval does not imply the company was not negligent, simply that they performed adequate studies to show safety & function. No matter how much testing you do, it is impossible to uncover all possible problems ahead of time, especially those which take time to develop. The trial-lawyer argument that simply because something went wrong a person or company was negligent simply serves to increase our already-high medical costs.

4
0
marionkellyJan. 7, 09 1:07 PM

High medical costs are primarily being driven by new technologies (medical and pharmaceutical). Many of these technologies and medicines are still under patent. It is not true that medical malpractice is driving the cost of health care. Moreover, a medical device which catastrophically fails and causes a patient injury has not done what it was designed to do. The device manufacturer is insured to cover such losses. A patient who cannot cover the medical bills forces the loss onto either the hospital or society.

0
2
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT