• Vena Cava IVC Filter Lawyers- IVC Filter Helpline:   Bard and Cook IVC Filter Lawyers Lawsuits are being filed  because the IVC (Inferior Vena Cava) Filters have been linked to migration and perforation of various organs in the body. An IVC (In...

  • Omni Life Hip Apex Arc Replacement Lawyers: Omni Life Apex ARC Hip Replacement Lawyers OMNI Life Science’s ARC hip Replacement has a  chromium and cobalt ball connecting to a titanium stem, is a metal-on-metal design. This hip replacement is l...

Florida Stryker Hip Replacement, Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Stories and Sharing

Hip implant patients tell of suffering, file lawsuits

    Diane Pingel of Boca Raton is one of eight who have filed lawsuits against Stryker. She had two of the hip implants, and has had one removed. The surgery shattered her bone in the process. She now has frequent physical therapy .( Carline Jean, Sun Sentinel)

Diane Pingel of Boca Raton is one of eight who have filed lawsuits against… (Carline Jean, Sun Sentinel )
September 13, 2012|By Ariel Barkhurst, Sun Sentinel

More South Floridians filed lawsuits this week against the company that recalled a hip implant because it was poisoning recipients.

Three patients from Boca Raton, Lake Worth and Boynton Beach are the latest seeking compensation as they cope with a range of heavy metal poisoning symptoms from the Rejuvenate model of hip implant made by Stryker Orthopaedic. They also want the Michigan-based company to pay for the risky surgery necessary to remove the faulty hip.

South Florida has many seniors and the numbers of hip replacements are consistent with this population. Faulty hip rreplacements lead to pain and an inability to function. The complications are severe with additional surgeries requiring longer periods of rehabilitation.

  • Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers Miami,
  • Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers Fort Lauderdale,
  • Stryker Hip Replacement  Lawyers Boca Raton,
  • Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers West Palm Beach, filing lawsuits for the faulty Stryker  Hip Replacement

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers Filing Lawsuits For Florida Seniors

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers Miami-Dade County

  • Aventura
  • Bal Harbour Village
  • Bay Harbor Islands
  • Biscayne Park
  • Coral Gables
  • Cutler Bay
  • Doral
  • El Portal
  • Florida City
  • Golden Beach
  • Hialeah
  • Hialeah Gardens
  • Homestead
  • Indian Creek Village
  • Islandia
  • Key Biscayne Village
  • Medley
  • Miami
  • Miami Beach
  • Miami Gardens
  • Miami Shores Village
  • Miami Springs
  • North Bay Village
  • North Miami
  • North Miami Beach
  • Opa-Locka
  • Palmetto Bay Village
  • Pinecrest
  • South Miami
  • Sunny Isles Beach
  • Surfside
  • Sweetwater
  • Virginia Gardens
  • West Miami

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers Broward County

  • Broward County
  • Coconut Creek
  • Cooper City
  • Coral Springs
  • Dania Beach
  • Davie
  • Deerfield Beach
  • Fort Lauderdale
  • Hallandale Beach
  • Hillsboro Beach
  • Hollywood
  • Lauderhill
  • Lauderdale Lakes
  • Lauderdale by the Sea
  • Lazy Lake
  • Lighthouse Point
  • Margate
  • Miramar
  • North Lauderdale
  • Oakland Park
  • Parkland
  • Pembroke Pines
  • Plantation
  • Pompano Beach
  • Sea Ranch Lakes
  • Southwest Ranches
  • Sunrise
  • Tamarac
  • West Park
  • Weston
  • Wilton Manors

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawyers Palm Beach County

  • Atlantis
  • Boca Raton
  • Boynton Beach
  • Briny Breezes
  • Delray Beach
  • Greenacres
  • Highland Beach
  • Hypoluxo
  • Juno Beach
  • Jupiter
  • Lake Clarke Shores
  • Lake Worth
  • Lantana
  • Manalapan
  • Mangonia Park
  • North Palm Beach
  • Ocean Ridge
  • Palm Beach
  • Palm Beach Gardens
  • Palm Beach Shores
  • Palm Springs
  • Riviera Beach
  • Royal Palm Beach
  • South Bay
  • South Palm Beach
  • Tequesta
  • West Palm Beach

Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline, Stryker Recall Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Stories and Sharing

A Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline has been launched for victims of the latest Stryker voluntary recall of the Stryker ABG II modular-neck stem used for total hip replacement surgery and the Stryker Rejuvinate modular-neck stem hip implant. The  Stryker hip implants have been recalled due to the fact that they could fret or corrode, harming body tissue and causing pain or swelling.

Complications and Injuries that are noted include:

  •     Severe inflammatory reactions
  •     Pain in the groin
  •     Need for additional medical care and revision surgeries
  •     Breakdown of muscles, tendons and other soft tissues in and around the hip joint
  •     Loss of surrounding bone
  •     Loss of mobility

The Stryker Rejuvenate side effects  appear to be similiar to the  Metal on Metal Hip Replacements that have caused a landslide of lawsuits against DePuy Orthopedics.
While other types of hip implants such as those made by Johnson & Johnson and DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. involve a metal ball rubbing against a metal socket, the Stryker Rejuvenate products involve a metal neck inside a metal stem. It appears that lawyers are beginning to build cases against Stryker as a part of the complete metal on metal hip replacement lawsuits. Stryker does run the risk of metal toxicity as chromium and cobalt poisoning may occur.

Anyone experiencing side effects from these Stryker products is advised to call the Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline for a Stryker Hip Replacement lawyer.

 

Stryker states that the rate of complications arising from the recalled devices was "extremely low." The company based its recall decision on information collected since the products hit the market, saying it "may be predictive of a trend." It instructed patients implanted with the devices to contact their surgeon.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a Stryker Rejuvenate product  a Stryker Hip replacement Lawyer contact the Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline for a

Hip replacement lawyer.

Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Helpline, Infuse Bone Graft Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Stories and Sharing

 

Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft lawyers, Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Helpline

DePuy Hip replacement helpline all Orthopedic related  dangerous device updates

Written by Injury Lawyer

 

 

May 16, 2012

. Posted in Accident Injury lawyer

Injury Lawyers  announce launch of Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawsuit  Division and Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Helpline
to educate individuals and families harmed by  off-label bone graft procedures and to help them understand the complications and how to pursue legal action with a Metronic Infuse Bone Graft Lawyer.

Medtronic faces an increasing number of product liability and personal injury lawsuit. Most recently, a Louisiana man, filed a lawsuit alleging that the company’s Infuse bone graft caused unwanted bone growth along his spinal cord, which worsened his back pain following a lumbar fusion.

The plaintiff, Martin Gavin alleges that Medtronic concealed information about the risk of complications from the Medtronic Infuse bone graft.

What is Medtronic Infuse?

Infuse, also known as bone morphogenetic protein-2, is a powerful bioengineered agent used in spinal fusion surgery. The product stimulates bone growth and eliminates the need to harvest a small amount of a patient's own bone to create a fusion between two vertebrae. As a result, it is highly popular with spine surgeons.

FDA Approved Infuse for limited use

The FDA approved Infuse in 2002 for use during anterior lumbar fusion surgeries. But as a result of slick and pressured marketing, it has been widely used off-label for a number of other types of spinal surgery, which have been found to increase the risk of severe adverse side effects.

Plaintiffs allege that they were never told that the Infuse was only approved for single-level anterior lumbar fusion, and had ever been adequately tested or approved for the type of spine surgery they underwent.

Medtronic Infuse Off Label Use

Off-label use of the Medtronic Infuse bone graft during procedures other than single-level anterior lumbar fusion have been linked to the growth of bone in those areas, leading to swelling and nerve damage.

FDA 2008 Warning

The FDA issued an alert in 2008, advising doctors not to use the Medtronic Infuse in neck or cervical spinal fusion procedures. The FDA had received numerous adverse event reports, involving potentially fatal complications that included swelling of the neck and respiratory difficulties.

U.S. Department of Justice investigation

The U.S. Department of Justice initiated an investigation focusing on the actions of Medtronic in 2008. The U.S DOJ was particularly interested in investigating whether Medtronic illegally promoted and marketed the Infuse bone graft for uses that were never approved by the FDA.

Other Medtronic Infuse Side Effects

Last year, concerns also emerged that the Medtronic Infuse bone graft may increase the risk of cancer. There have also been concerns that med treated with Medtronic Infuse may face a risk of sterility.

Shareholders said Infuse sales and Medtronic's share price fell after the company revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice was probing off-label marketing and the U.S. Senate began its own inquiry.

he Infuse Bone Graft is  manufactured by Medtronic. The infuse Bone Graft is a  biologically-engineered protein (known as rhBMP-2) that is used to promote bone growth and replace damaged spinal discs. It is used in conjunction with a metallic cage implant (LT-Cage Device) that works to stabilize the spine as the new bone grows. Infuse Bone Graft is designed to reduce the pain and complications that are associated with treating degenerative disc disease (DDD) by eliminating the second surgery that is typically required to remove bone from a patient’s hip for transplantation to the spine for repair.

FDA Alerts on the Infuse Bone Graft

The FDA put special emphasis on the fact ”that the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP in the cervical spine have not been demonstrated and these products are not approved by FDA for this use.”

The FDA stated that they had received at least 38 reports of complications during the last 4 years with the use of rhBMP in cervical spine fusion. These complications were associated with swelling of neck and throat tissue, which resulted in compression of the airway and/or neurological structures in the neck. Some reports describe difficulty swallowing, breathing or speaking. Severe dysphagia following cervical spine fusion using rhBMP products has also been reported in the literature.

The Infuse Bone graft has been Approved for

DDD occurs when a spinal disc deteriorates to the point of causing back pain, a diagnosis that must be confirmed by history and x-rays. Spinal fusion is a surgical method used to treat DDD and involves removing the damaged disc and replacing it with bone graft that will fuse – or join – the two adjacent vertebrae together in order to stabilize the spine. Infuse Bone Graft is used in over 100,000 U.S. spinal fusion surgeries each year.

Infuse Bone Graft is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in anterior spinal fusion of the lumbar spine, as well as for the repair of open tibial shaft fractures and two minor dental procedures.

                                                                 Infuse Bone Graft should not be used  for

  • Women who are pregnant or who suspect pregnancy
  • Individuals with infections near the area of the surgical incision
  • Individuals who have had a tumor removed from the area of the implantation site
  • Individuals who currently have tumors in or near the area of the implantation site
  • Individuals whose bones have not stopped growing
  • Individuals who are sensitive to titanium, titanium alloy, bovine (cow) Type I collagen or rhBMP-2.

The Infuse Bone graft is being Used for off label not FDA approved Use

The FDA originally approved Infuse Bone Graft in 2002 but as with many drugs and devices, off-label use of Infuse Bone Graft was permitted once the device received FDA approval. The practice of using a drug or device off-label is permitted if physicians believe it will benefit their patients and if they fully advise their patients of the risks associated with the off-label use. In July of 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning to healthcare providers about reported life-threatening complications associated with the off-label use of Infuse Bone Graft for cervical (neck) spinal fusions. This warning was issued in response to 38 reports of complications received by the FDA between 2004 and 2008. These complications include neck and throat swelling leading to airway compression, swallowing and breathing difficulties, as well as problems with speech. In the warning, the FDA noted that “the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP in the cervical spine have not been demonstrated and these products are not approved by FDA for this use.”

Infuse Bone Graft lawyers are Filing lawsuits for complications from the infuse bone graft

The Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft has been linked to life-threatening complications in patients who were given Medtronic off-label. Medtronic bone graft complications include swelling of the airways, which can cause difficulty breathing, speaking and swallowing. Medtronic Infuse has also been linked to retrograde ejaculation which can lead to male sterility. A number of Medtronic lawsuits allege the manufacturer illegally promoted the Medtronic bone product for off-label uses.

Speak to  a Medtronic Bone Graft Lawyer

If you or someone you know has experienced complications after being treated with a Medtronic bone growth product call the medtronic Bone graft helpline today. Our lawyers   are  currently reviewing  Medtronic lawsuits nationwide.

 

 

 

 

DePuy Hip Replacement Lawyers Filing DePuy Lawsuits

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Stories and Sharing

DePuy Hip Replacement Helpline is reaching out to all victims of a failed DePuy to watch the statute of limitations. It is time to file your DePuy Lawsuits, If you have had revision surgery, or have been told you need revision sugery fir your failed DePuy Hip Replacement contact us today, We are also looking at cases for cobalt and chromium toxicity. See the interesting article on the Depuy Lawsuit statute of Limitations below. NOTE : We are also accepting Stryker Hip replacement lawsuits for the Stryker hip replacement recall.

Will DePuy ASR Hip Implant Claims be Paid Once the Statute of Limitations Has Passed?
The DePuy ASR hip implant claims are being directed through Broadspire, a leading third-party administrator to employers and insurance companies. Few of those harmed by the implant are fully cognizant of the extreme level of sophistication of such firms. Johnson & Johnson and DePuy have engaged Broadspire to engage in damage control as well as downplay the public outcry regarding the huge 2010 hip implant recall. In its role as a risk management firm, Broadspire will use the claimant data related to medical reimbursement requests to garner as much knowledge about the patients as possible.

 Will Broadspire Continue to Pay Benefits on the DePuy Lawsuits?

Those recipients of hip implants who are in the throes of adverse medical events related to the hip implant should take a look at Broadspire’s website in order to fully grasp the levels the company will go to in order to use privileged medical records for the benefit of their client, Johnson & Johnson and DePuy. The Broadspire website additionally boasts of an entire panel of medical professionals at their disposal leaving one to wonder how critical patient medical files will end up being used against the victims.  Since many of those harmed by the hip implant system currently rely on the reimbursement benefits which help cover co-pays and deductibles, they are questioning whether those benefits will continue.  In other words, will Broadspire continue to pay those benefits following the statute of limitations in August of 2012?

 Is DePuy Hip Replacement the Reimbursement Process Contractual?

The reimbursement process currently in place for those who have suffered medical issues due to the metal-on-metal hip implant is neither a contractual nor promised benefit therefore can be withdrawn or changed at virtually any time by Johnson & Johnson and DePuy. It has been speculated that the sole purpose of Broadspire’s reimbursement program is to exert influence on victims of hip implants persuading them to forego the pursuit of a legal claim. For those claimants who may be barred from a civil claim due to the statute of limitations the question remains as to whether DePuy and Johnson & Johnson will hold up their ethical end of the bargain and continue to pay these reimbursements.

 The Harmful Effects of Metallosis and Cobalt, Chromium Toxicity

 For those recipients of the metal-on-metal hip implant who have suffered metal toxicity, it’s important to note that the specific injuries associated are quite significant yet may not manifest for three to six years following implantation. Kidney and liver disease as well as certain types of cancer may occur as a result of the toxic metal buildup in the bloodstream but victims may not be aware of these serious diseases until much later. This means that many of those who have a hip implant may not fully recognize the extent of their injuries until after the expiration of the time limits, leaving them with little recourse. These victims deserve the same compensation for medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering that any victim does, yet may find that avenue lost to them forever.

 The Risk to patients with a failed DePuy Hip Recall injury

 Since the law does not specifically mandate that Johnson & Johnson and DePuy make the reimbursement payments beyond the statute of limitations, it stands to reason that they will direct Broadspire to discontinue those payments. Should recipients of hip implant systems who are currently receiving reimbursement payments risk losing those payments? Unfortunately there is nothing in writing that will prohibit these corporate giants from ceasing payments. The highly experienced attorneys who have extensive knowledge of the entire metal-on-metal hip lawsuits believe future considerations and medical expenses may be discounted unless these corporations are held legally accountable.

 It is not advisable for any victim of a metal hip implant to trust in the word of DePuy and Johnson & Johnson when there is no legal mechanism in place to force them to back up that word. Recipients of the metal implants may have been exposed to much higher than normal levels of chromium and cobalt which can alter their health and their future. Some of the long-term effects from such exposure include decreased kidney function, adverse neurological effects, cardiovascular issues, hearing problems, lymphoma or disease of the thyroid gland. Because each individual’s case is unique, it must be evaluated on the specific characteristics and injury suffered.

 Broadspire Already Denying Legitimate DePuy Hip Replacement Claims

 Many victims of the metal-on-metal hip implant find they have suffered significant decreases in their vitality, energy and overall health status. Tissue damage and necrosis or joint damage may have resulted by the time the diagnosis is made, leading to significant impairment of mobility and range of motion. Many recipients of these devices find they are no longer able to enjoy the activities and hobbies they once did and may not even be able to perform routine day-to-day tasks. Even so, Broadspire has routinely denied reimbursements based only on their opinion that the injuries were not directly relatable to the defective hip implant. Though the patients’ physicians have gone to bat for them, disagreeing with such arbitrary assessments, Broadspire continues to sidestep their client’s responsibility. Several victims of the hip implant have claimed significant bone loss and joint destruction only to find that Broadspire disallowed their claims, calling the injuries “chronic.”

 Statute of Limitations Variations for the DePuy lawsuits

At least twenty-eight states have product liability statutes of limitation which are two years or less, therefore for unrepresented victims of the metal-on-metal hip implant, the time could be short and legal representation is encouraged. As with many defective medical products, the legal restrictions and protections afforded the corporations could potentially leave many hip implant victims with few options or legal recourse.

To file your DePuy Hip replacement lawsuit call the Helpline today.

NEW HIP REPLACEMENT RECALL NEWS

New Stryker Hip Replacement Recall, Metal Components Hip Replacement
Stryker Orthopaedics Recalls Rejuvenate Modular Hip System

New Stryker Hip Replacement Helpline and Stryker hip replacement lawyers offering help to people with a failed Stryker hip replacement

In July 2012, Stryker Orthopaedics voluntarily recalled its Rejuvenate Modular Hip System. The recall includes both Stryker’s Rejuvenate Modular and ABG II modular-neck hip stems.
Probelms include:

  •     Joint loosening and dislocation of the connecting joint
  •     corrosion and fretting of the device
  •     metal debris leading to metal  toxicity
  •     Inflammation of  surrounding tissue
  •     allergic response
  •     Broken devices in the hip after the surgery

Statute of limitations by State

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Stories and Sharing

Statutes of Limitations for the 50 States and D.C DePuy Hip Replacement  Helpline. DePuy Hip replacement Lawyers accepting clients with revision surgeries from the Failed DePuy. Florida, Georgia, Texas, California Nationwide

DePuy Hip Replacement lawyers are filing lawsuits nationwide on Behalf ov victims of faulty hip replacements.

State statute Written Contract oral contract Injury property damage
Alabama Ala. Code § 6-2-2 et seq. * 6 6 2 6
Alaska Alaska Stat. § 09.10.010 et seq. 3 3 2 6 (real property); 2 (personal property)
Arizona Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-541 et seq. 6 3 2 2
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-101 et seq. 5 3 3 3
California Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 312 et seq. 4 2 2 3
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 et seq. 6 6 2 2
Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-575 et seq. 6 3 3 2
Delaware Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8101 et seq. 3 3 3 2
District of Columbia D.C. Code § 12-301 et seq. 3 3 3 3
Florida Fla. Stat. Ann. § 95.011 et seq. 5 4 4 4
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-20 et seq. 6 4 2 4
Hawaii Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-1 et seq. 6 6 2 2
Idaho Idaho Code § 5-201 et seq. 5 4 2 3
Illinois 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-201 et seq. 10 5 2 5
Indiana Ind. Code Ann. § 34-11-2-1 et seq. 10 6 2 6 (real property); 2 (personal property)
Iowa Iowa Code Ann. § 614.1 et seq. 10 5 2 5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-501 et seq. 5 3 2 2
Kentucky Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.080 et seq. 15 5 1 5 (real property); 2 (personal property)
Louisiana La. civil code § 3492 et seq. 10 10 1 1
Maine Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 751 et seq. 6 6 6 6
Maryland Md. Courts & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 5-101 et seq. 3 3 3 3
Massachusetts Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 260, § 1 et seq. 6 6 3 3
Michigan Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5801 et seq. 6 6 3 3
Minnesota Minn. Stat. Ann. § 541.01 et seq. 6 6 6 6
Mississippi Miss. Code. Ann. § 15-1-1 et seq. 6 3 3 3
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.097 et seq. 5 5 5 5
Montana Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-2021 et seq. 8 5 3 2
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201 et seq. 5 4 4 4
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 11.010 et seq. 6 4 2 3
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:1 et seq. 3 3 3 3
New Jersey N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2a:14-1 et seq. 6 6 2 6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-1 et seq. 6 4 3 4
New York N.Y. Civ. Prac. Laws & Rules § 201 et seq. 6 6 3 3
North Carolina N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-46 et seq. 3 3 3 3
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-01 et seq. 6 6 6 6
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.03 et seq. 15 6 2 4
Oklahoma Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 91 et seq. 5 3 2 2
Oregon Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.010 et seq. 6 6 10 6
Pennsylvania 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5501 et seq. 4 4 2 2
Rhode Island R. I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-12 et seq. 10 10 3 10
South Carolina S.C. Code Ann. § 15-3-510 et seq. 3 3 3 3
South Dakota S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 15-2-1 et seq. 6 6 3 6
Tennessee Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-101 et seq. 6 6 1 3
Texas Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.001 et seq. 4 4 2 2
Utah Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-22 et seq. 6 4 4 3
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 461 et seq. 6 6 3 3
Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-228 et seq. 5 3 2 5
Washington Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.005 et seq. 6 3 3 3
West Virginia W. Va. Code § 55-2-1 et seq. 10 5 2 2
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.01 et seq. 6 6 3 6
Wyoming Wyo. Stat. § 1-3-102 et seq. 10 8 4 4

 

Horror Stories of DePuy Hip Recall Shared with Senate

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Stories and Sharing

DePuy hip recall: Patient shares horror story with Senate panel

DePuy Hip replacement Helpline awaits the senate review decision and hopes for justice.

April 13, 2011 by MassDevice staff

Katie Korgaokar captures the attention of a Senate panel examining medical device safety on Capitol Hill with her story of a faulty ASR hip implant made by DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., accusing the surgeon who implanted the device of receiving more than $600,000 in consulting fees from DePuy.

capitol_100.jpg

More than 96,000 patients have been affected by the massive global recall of a total hip replacement system made by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Katie Korgaokar, one of those unlucky patients, spoke for all of them today at a U.S. Senate hearing on medical device safety.

"I thought I was getting good advice. I researched the doctor. I picked him. I just don't know what I could've done differently," she said. "It still blows me away that something that goes into the body doesn't get tested properly."

Depuy Hip Replacement Helpline hears from people with failed hip replacements.  Hip recall lawyers accepting clients with failed DePuy. DePuy Hip Replacement helpline awaits the decisions of the senate review committee and hopes for Justice.