They claim that they conducted an extensive investigation into the safety of the product before introducing it into the market. The manufacturer’s defense is that they did not place their BOST spinal cord stimulator in the market until recently. It is not known at this time if the manufacturer will be sued personally. They are seeking compensatory and permanent damages. The plaintiffs further claim that the BOST spinal cord stimulator, which is the model in which the C-PAP is manufactured, causes permanent damage to their spinal cords. Furthermore, they claim that it improperly stimulates the spinal cord. According to them, the C-PAP lacks FDA approval and therefore should not be legally classified as a treatment for sleep apnea. The plaintiffs base their legal argument on the fact that despite the manufacturer’s claims that their C-PAP machine is safe, it does not meet the safety standard required by the US FDA. If either manufacturer is found to have been liable in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages. They base their argument on the language of Mass Gen Laws section 6ef(b), which states that “any claim or cause of action under this chapter that is based on negligence, gross negligence, or intentional wrongfulness or willful misconduct of a person or entity must be brought within three years of the victim’s injury or death.” This language of the law, they argue, clearly allows them to file a suit against the manufacturer or distributor of the Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator or the manufacturer of the C-PAP machine. In their Spinal Cord Stimulator Class Action Lawsuit, they assert that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has jurisdiction over them. However, this relief may only be afforded while the devices are in use, and those who are injured during or after that use may not be able to legally sue for damages because of battery issues.” Gerber goes on to say that “It appears from the evidence so far that there may be a theoretical danger in using a product like a Spinal Cord Stimulator that may never have an effect, but that is the very basis for the lawsuit.” This is where attorney’s differ. Gerber, a plaintiff’s attorney, “No one disputes that Spinal Cord Stimulator devices can provide temporary relief for spinal cord injury victims. The question that arises is whether or not the Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Class Action Lawsuit has a valid claim to being the victim of defective and dangerous spinal cord stimulation products.Īccording to lawyer Michael J. Spinal Cord Stimulator cases have also been responsible for causing long-term mental and behavioral problems such as learning disabilities and depression. Some of the more common injuries include headaches, back pain, and numbness. People who have been injured have suffered not only physical injuries but also pain and emotional distress. These injuries and the associated medical costs are what make the Class Action Lawsuit possible. There is currently a class action lawsuit against the Boston Scientific Spine Stimpulator Company regarding the BOST spinal cord stimulator.The manufacturer’s defense is that they did not place their BOST spinal cord stimulator in the market until recently.The question that arises is whether or not the Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator Class Action Lawsuit has a valid claim to being the victim of defective and dangerous spinal cord stimulation products.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |