Shoulder Pain Pumps—Pumping Pain, No Gain

Phoenix, AZHow many shoulder pain complaints need to be reported to the manufacturers of shoulder pain pumps before they are either taken off the market altogether or go back to the drawing board? LawyersandSettlements alone has received countless complaints after patients' shoulder surgery against this defective product.

Shoulder Pain Pump Complaints

Cory had her rotator cuff repaired in 2005 and used a shoulder pain pump immediately after surgery. "I complained about the pain back then and couldn't sleep at night," she says. "I was given steroid injections to help but two years later I am still suffering…I still have trouble with sleeping at night and everyday activities; in fact I have more discomfort now than I did before the surgery."

Kevin S. had surgery on his right shoulder for a labral tear-- an injury to the shoulder joint. "I had a shoulder pain pump for three days but more than a year later, I still suffer with pain in my right shoulder, whatever I do," he says. " Symptoms include clicking, popping and grinding, weakness or stiffness in the shoulder, and decreased range of motion." Kerry reports a similar experience: he says that, due to the shoulder pain pump, "regretfully, the operation caused my shoulder to become much worse instead of better."

"Six months after surgery I have clicking, popping and grinding in my shoulder," says Gerald. "I revisited my surgeon and he gave me a cortisone shot but the problem still exists: Limited range of motion, pain and loss of strength."

These people (and countless others) are likely suffering from PAGCL (Postarthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis)--a condition which occurs when shoulder cartilage begins to deteriorate—and shoulder pain pumps have been linked to PAGCL. Patients who received shoulder pain pumps after surgery commonly suffer from the following:

- Continuous shoulder pain while in motion or at rest
- Decreased range of motion
- Popping, clicking, grinding in the shoulder
- Shoulder stiffness and/or weakness

If that isn't bad enough, they will likely have to deal with these painful side effects caused by their shoulder pain pump for the rest of their lives, or until an effective treatment is developed to replace shoulder cartilage.

Shoulder Pain Pump Litigation Update

A February 2008 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court favored manufacturers of medical devices--such as shoulder pain pump makers--from injury liability suits. Prior to this ruling, consumers injured by medical devices could bring product liability cases against the devices manufacturer. Naturally, companies such as shoulder pain pump makers Stryker Corp., I-Flow Corp., Smith & Nephew, Inc., DePuy, Inc., DJO, Inc., Breg, Inc. and AstraZeneca PLC, along with various federal officials are against this practice and seek to limit liability cases.

In September 2008, the Arizona Capitol Times reported that, if the court returns a favorable ruling to the pharmaceutical company, it would be a continuation of a series of rulings overlooking legal precedents by barring lawsuits against corporations. Brian Wolfman, director of litigation for Public Citizen Group, said if pharmaceutical companies prevail, it would be a "radical change to the American judicial system."

Despite this ruling, many lawsuits have been filed and are currently pending and potential cases are still being reviewed by product liability lawyers.

In May 2008, several attorneys filed a petition to have all cases involving the development of shoulder chondrolysis from the pumps consolidated before one judge, as part of a coordinated process known as an MDL, or multidistrict litigation. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied a petition to consolidate all federal lawsuits. The ruling was based on a 1976 law that required medical devices to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration before entering the market.

However, public advocacy groups and several key federal lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Federal Reform have spoken out against the decision, stating that the 1976 law was never intended to provide a shield against civil litigation. The court's decision also is being critiqued by consumer rights advocates for the possible affects it might have on public safety.

All medical device lawyers will no doubt follow closely a trial this November which involves the claim of Vermont musician Diana Levine. She was injected with Phenergan, made by Wyeth; she contracted gangrene within days of the injection (that accidentally struck an artery) and her right hand and lower arm were amputated. Levine was awarded $6.7 million in damages but Wyeth appealed the case and the Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to hear the appeal.

The court will first determine if preemption applies to the case and, if so, whether that preemption shields pharmaceutical companies from liability lawsuits. Stay tuned…