|
Concerns grow that metal-on-metal implants could destroy muscle
and bone and cause 'systemic toxicity'
Problems occur when friction between the metal ball and cup causes
tiny metal filings to break off and potentially seep into the blood.
These fragments can also cause a soft tissue reaction, destroying
muscle and bone. The MHRA advised that people fitted with the
devices should undergo annual check-ups for five years following
surgery.
It also said that those experiencing pain should be given tests to
check the levels of cobalt and chromium in their blood, and an MRI
or ultrasound scan to check for soft tissue reactions.
In September 2010, DePuy International Limited, a subsidiary of
Johnson & Johnson, announced it was urgently recalling two types of
its ASR metal hip replacement implants. It came after data from the
National Joint Registry of England And Wales found "failure rates"
of 13% for the ASR XL Acetabular system and 12% for the ASR Hip
Resurfacing System. Following the recall the MHRA advised
orthopaedic surgeons to contact and monitor all patients given the
implants.
More than 10,000 of the 40,000 Britons who have had metal hip
replacements were fitted with the devices made by DePuy.
If you are affected by this, then it may be you have grounds for
compensation. Contact us so we can put you on the right track to
finding out. Simply complete the
online questionnaire
and we will get back to you. |
|
A shopper who was injured at an outdoor market has secured
£30,000 in compensation. The unnamed woman was passing a stall in
the market when the accident happened. A large metal pole fell from
the stall and hit her on the shoulder.
Her shoulder was fractured in the accident, and she also suffered
pain in her head and neck. Despite receiving treatment, she now has
restricted mobility as well as ongoing pain. This causes her sleep
to be disrupted at times, and her injuries mean that she requires
help with household tasks.
The woman worked in a factory and was forced to take time off in
order to recover. When she eventually returned, she was no longer
able to resume the physically demanding work she had carried out
previously. Her earnings have therefore decreased, as she has had to
accept lighter duties and is unable to work overtime.
A claim was brought against the stallholder involved. The
stallholder admitted liability for the woman’s injuries, but an
initial offer of compensation was rejected as being too low. After
negotiations, an out-of-court settlement of £30,000 was agreed.
The contents of this article are intended for general
information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or
constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any
loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this
article. |
|
EBay may be liable for trademark infringement where fake L'Oréal
products are sold on its website, the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
has held. In its ruling, L'Oréal v eBay (Case C-324/09), the ECJ
said online marketplaces such as eBay cannot claim exemption from
liability for these infringements if they are aware that they are
facilitating sales of an illegal nature. This is so even where the
website does not play an “active role” in the sale (assisting the
seller by promoting the goods or optimising their presentation
online). |
|
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision in Waldemar
Belka v Joseph Lawrence Prosperini [2001] EWCA Civ 623, [2001] All
ER (D) 41 (May) that where a pedestrian has taken a deliberate risk
of an accident by running across a road in front of a vehicle which
had the right of way, liability can be apportioned equally between
the driver and the pedestrian. On the facts and at first instance,
despite the fact that the trial judge found concluded that the
pedestrian was two thirds to blame, with regard to causative
potency, the failures of both the claimant and the defendant
contributed equally to the collision.
|
|
The family of a man who died of mesothelioma has been awarded
£250,000 in damages from the company where he used to work.
The unnamed man had carried out research on asbestos for a chemical
company. This necessitated cutting up samples of the material,
creating large amounts of asbestos dust. However, he was not warned
about the dangers of exposure to asbestos fibres, nor was he given a
mask nor any other protective equipment. He later developed
mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer that attacks the lining of the
lungs and which is caused by exposure to asbestos.
Before he began to experience symptoms of the disease, the man was
fit and active. His health deteriorated rapidly, however, and he
eventually needed a wheelchair and 24-hour care. He died before his
claim could be settled.
The man’s former employer admitted liability and its insurance
company has paid out more than £250,000 to his family. This took
into account the pain and suffering he endured as well as the loss
of income and the considerable costs he incurred as a result of his
illness. |
