Hip Implants

Week Adjourned: 10.13.17 – Whole Foods, Hip Implants, Burger King

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Whole Foods wholly implicated? …in a potential data breach class action lawsuit alleging that it wasn’t paying as much attention as it should have in safeguarding its customers’ personal info. In other words, negligence. According to the complaint, the hack took place in September and resulted in consumers’ personal information being stolen.

According to the Whole Foods lawsuit, filed by named plaintiff Patricia Banus, the data hack affected Whole Foods taprooms and restaurants. Banus alleges in the lawsuit that she paid for goods at a Whole Foods Market Group Inc. taproom four days before the September 28 announcement of the breach. As a result, she asserts she must now cancel her card, given that her personally identifiable information may have been compromised through the breach of the taproom’s point-of-sale system.

“Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, brings this action to challenge the actions on Whole Foods in the protection and safekeeping of the plaintiff’s and class members’ personal information,” the complaint states. “Whole Foods’ failures to safeguard the consumer PII has caused plaintiff and class members damage.”

According to the complaint, Whole Foods had a duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to safeguard customers’ personally identifiable information from being disclosed to third parties. As part of those responsibilities, Whole Foods should have been following security protocols from Mastercard and VISA in the processing of card transactions. The breach may have resulted from a failure by Whole Foods to comply with these security standards, the complaint states.

Further, Whole Foods allegedly violated Ohio consumer protection laws and if consumers had known that their personal data was not properly protected, they would have potentially have shopped somewhere else, the complaint states.

The plaintiff claims there is a good probability that the full extent of the identity theft and fraud that could result from the Whlole Foods data breach has yet to be disclosed and consumers’ information might be available to purchase on the dark web.

The proposed class is made up of all US consumers whose personal data was released during the September breach. Banus also seeks to represent an Ohio subclass. The size of the proposed class is unclear with the company reporting that 117 venues were affected.

The case is Banus v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., case number 1:17-cv-02132, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Top Settlements

Wright to pay for what’s wrong… Wright Medical Technologies wants out and they’re willing to pay for it. This week, the company announced it will pay $340 million to end about 2,000 claims resulting from alleged failure of its hip implant devices. This settlement will augment the Wright defective hip implant settlement reached in 2016 by $90 million, according to the defendant’s legal counsel.

The lawsuits are consolidated in multidistrict product liability litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia or in Los Angeles Superior Court in judicial counsel coordinated proceedings, California’s equivalent to a federal MDL.

The first bellwether case was heard in 2015 and resulted in an $11 million jury verdict for Robyn Christiansen, a 73-year-old Salt Lake City ski instructor who had suffered a catastrophic failure of her Wright-manufactured hip implant. The award was eventually reduced by $9 million.

According to the terms reported for the 2016 settlements, each claimant with a Conserve Cup device received about $170,000. Each claimant implanted with either a Dynasty or Lineage replacement hip that had failed received $120,000.

The Wright hip implant metal-on-metal design was responsible for the device failures, because it caused metal wear, according to court records. This resulted in the shedding of metallic debris into the surrounding tissue, leading to a condition known as metallosis, which inflamed and poisoned tissue, dissolved bone that anchored the implant and ultimately caused the implant to fail, court records state.

According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, this new settlement agreement will include hundreds of cases excluded in the first agreement because Wright Technology, the medical device company’s new Chinese owners, and Wright’s insurance carrier did not have sufficient funds to cover all the claims.

The new cases include those with hip implants that failed after the statute of limitations on suing had expired, cases filed after the original settlement was consummated, and suits by plaintiffs who reconsidered after initially deciding not to accept a settlement offer last year, the attorneys said.

Those plaintiffs who refuse to settle as part of the $340 million agreement, will be dismissed and remanded to their states of origin, according to the attorneys.

Burger King BOGO Rewind… in the form of a settlement that could see consumers get $2 gift cards. Yup- it’s part of the terms of the settlement meant to end the pending consumer fraud class action lawsuit. Under those terms consumers who ordered Croissan’wiches with a coupon, will receive $2 gift cards. Well, shut the front door!

According to the lawsuit, some customers who ordered their sandwiches without eggs, cheese or meat may have been overcharged and those customers who presented a buy-one-get-one-free coupon paid a higher price for the sandwich.

The lawsuit was filed by Burger King customer Koleta Anderson, in Maryland federal court on May 2017, on behalf of aggrieved breakfast patrons who alleged they were overcharged when using a coupon. This resulted in Burger King conducting its own investigation into the allegations.

According to court documents, Burger King Corp did in fact find that customers who used a buy-one-get-one-free coupon to order two of the breakfast sandwiches that were modified to exclude eggs, cheese or meat may have been charged the cost of a regular Croissan’wich instead of the lower cost of the pastry without the eggs, cheese or meat.

The faulty point-of-sale programs that caused the overcharges have been updated, Burger King said. Further, the restaurant chain has agreed to give $5 to customers who have a receipt showing their overcharge on modified BOGO Croissan’wiches, and $2 gift cards to customers who meet certain other terms.

The proposed settlement also includes a permanent injunction barring the fast-food chain from repeating the mistake.

Anderson will receive a service award of $500 for assisting in the case. That’s a lot of sandwiches…

The case is Anderson v. Burger King Corp., case number 8:17-cv-01204, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

So folks – on that happy note – this week’s a wrap –see you at the bar!!

Week Adjourned: 5.20.16 – Uber, BMW, Hip Implants

Top Class Action Lawsuits

Dueling Rides… An unfair business practices class action lawsuit has been filed by the ride share company Lyft against its rival company Uber, alleging Uber creates and uses shell accounts to hurt business for Lyft. Yeah, that sounds pretty unfair, if true.

Lyft driver Ryan Smythe and “others similarly situated”, filed the Uber class action complaint against Uber Technologies Inc, and 100 unnamed entities said to exist as “mere shells and conduits” for Uber’s affairs.

Here’s the skinny: according to the complaint, Mr. Smythe started as a Lyft driver in September 2014, one month after accusations began concerning “Operation SLOG,” an alleged Uber-sponsored campaign that involved spamming Lyft drivers with false ride requests in an effort to negatively impact Lyft’s business.

This allegedly involved Uber creating dummy Lyft accounts with prepaid cellphones and credit cards which were then used to place fake requests with Lyft drivers. According to the lawsuit, Uber’s alleged operation amounted to unfair business practices under California law as well as intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

The complaint asserts that Uber engaged in a “systematic course of creating fraudulent Lyft accounts from which sham orders were placed, at least in part to deprive Class members from earning income in violation of California Business and Professions Code which prohibits unfair business practice.”

Further, Smythe claims in the proposed class action that Uber directed its drivers and third-party companies to make these requests “for the sole purpose of luring Lyft drivers to locations in which a false request for service directed them.” So much for “just making a living.”

“Uber Technologies did this to discourage Lyft drivers from contracting with Lyft, to deprive the marketplace of Lyft drivers so that Uber drivers could benefit and to create a higher wait time for Lyft customers in order to steer their patronage to Uber Technologies in violation of California Business and Professions Code,” the complaint states.

75 to 45 in 2 Seconds? This sounds just a tad dangerous. BMW got hit with a nationwide defective automotive class action lawsuit for alleged defects in the electric BMW i3 vehicles—defects which cause the vehicle to rapidly drop speed. Read on.

The BMW lawsuit centers around the BMW i3 “Range Extender” feature. This option, called REx, outfits the vehicle with a two-cylinder gasoline engine producing 34 horsepower that switches on when the battery charge depletes to five percent, giving the vehicle another 70 miles of range. BMW claims that the Range Extender “doubles your electric driving range” from the vehicle’s standard 81-mile range.

However, the lawsuit alleges that in practice, when the gasoline engine kicks in, it doesn’t produce enough power to prevent a dramatic decrease in the vehicle’s performance. As alleged, if the car is under any kind of significant load (such as going up a hill, or loaded with passengers), the speed of the car will dramatically decrease as the battery charge diminishes. According to the complaint, this can result in the car slowing to speeds of 45 miles per hour on the freeway, without warning. This sudden and unexpected loss of power in a motor vehicle can result in a catastrophic situation for all those on the road. Yes, no—not a good thing at all.

The lawsuit seeks to have the vehicles redesigned and repaired at BMW’s expense, and to halt the sale of all i3 vehicles until repairs can be made. The claim also seeks compensation for all the owners of the vehicles, who were not told of the serious safety defect.

The case Edo Tsoar v. BMW North America, LLC (Case No. 2:16-cv-03386) was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Top Settlements

Hip Settlement in Canada. Some news from north of the Border—two Canadian class actions have been certified—one in British Columbia (Jones v. Zimmer) and another in Ontario (McSherry v. Zimmer). Authorization (Certification) is pending in a proposed class action filed in Quebec (Major v. Zimmer), and the parties have consented to authorization (certification) of that action.

Translation? Settlement. Yup—subject to court approval, the hip implant settlement applies to “all persons who were implanted with the Durom Cup in Canada” and their estates and family members. Nice one.

No dollar figures to report, and of course, the defendants to the three actions do not admit liability, but have agreed to a settlement providing compensation to class members with certain injuries upon approval after receipt of supporting documentation, less deductions for legal fees.

FYI—Public health insurers are also entitled to compensation under the settlement agreement.

Motions to approve the settlement agreement will be heard in Vancouver on June 28, 2016, Ontario on July 14, 2016, and in Montreal on June 28, 2016.

Ok…that’s a wrap folks! Have a good one–and see you at the Bar!

Week Adjourned: 4.8.16 – Hyundai, Kia, Hertz, J&J Hip Implants

Top Class Action Lawsuits

New Month, New Defective Auto Lawsuit… This time, it’s a Hyundai and Kia defective automobile class action. The car companies are facing the wrath of consumers, who allege the paint on 2006-2016 Hyundai Santa Fe, Sonata, and Elantra vehicles contain an identical and inherent defect which causes the paint to bubble, peel and flake off the vehicle, which can lead to rusting and corrosion.

Filed by Michelle Resnick, Shelby Cramer, Lauren Freed, Paul Sandlin, Patricia Reynolds, Christopher Baker, and Tara Mulrey, individually and for all others similarly situated, the lawsuit claims vehicle owners must either live with these problems or spend significant amounts of money to repair and repaint the vehicles.

The plaintiffs allege breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Business and Professions Code, and violations of unfair and deceptive trade practices acts in several states. Go get’em.

The case is US District Court for the Central District of California Case number 8:16-CV-00593-BRO-PJW.

Some Hurtin’ for Hertz…Heads up Hertz customers…in yet another consumer fraud class action filing this week, America’s largest car rental company stands accused of not playing fair with its terms and conditions as stated on its website. The Hertz lawsuit, in fact, alleges violations of the New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Read on.

The skinny is that named plaintiff, David Hecht, claims the terms and conditions states on the Hertz website violate TCCWNA because of a failure to state how they affect New Jersey residents.

Here’s what that looks like: Hecht’s allegations target Hertz’s website for enrolling in the car rental company’s Gold Plus Rewards Program. Hecht’s lawsuit specifically references a portion of the TCCWNA that states “No consumer contract, notice or sign shall state that any of its provisions is or may be void, unenforceable or inapplicable without specifying which provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

Hecht seeks to represent two classes in his lawsuit. The first would be those New Jersey residents enrolled in Hertz Gold Plus Rewards when the case was filed. This class also would include New Jersey residents enrolled in the program six years prior to whenever the website’s Terms and Conditions stated “in words or substance, that Gold Plus Rewards offers are void where prohibited, without specifying whether these provisions are or are not void, unenforceable or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

The second proposed class would include New Jersey residents who rented a Hertz vehicle for personal, household or family purposes via company’s website within six years of the date of the filing. That class would cover a period when Hertz’s Terms of Use said “that except as otherwise required by law, price, rate and availability of products or services are subject to change without notice and that the Hertz’ General Terms of Use are void where prohibited, without specifying whether these provisions are void, unenforceable, or inapplicable within the State of New Jersey.”

Top Settlements

J&J $502M Hip Award. This should cause some serious thinking at J&J. The company was ordered to pay a whopping $502 million settlement this week, which was awarded by a jury in Dallas hearing the consolidated lawsuits of five plaintiffs who all allege that DePuy Orthopedics and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) Ultamet hip implant is defective and caused them pain, injury and suffering.

The plaintiffs who accused the company of hiding flaws in its Pinnacle artificial hips that caused the devices to prematurely fail and left them facing surgeries and pain.

FYI—the DePuy Ultamet hip replacement devices are metal-on-metal. The problem with metal-on-metal devices is that metal debris can reportedly come loose, resulting in metals being absorbed by the patient’s surrounding tissue and causing excess levels of chromium and cobalt in the patient’s blood. Furthermore, patients may experience pain, inflammation and soft tissue damage in the area around the hip, making mobility difficult if not impossible.

The jury awarded $142 million in actual damages and $360 million in punitive damages. You want to say congratulations, but “really?”

Ok, that’s a wrap folks…see you at the bar!

Week Adjourned: 7.31.15 – CVS, Hip Implants, Fiat Chrysler

Top Class Action Lawsuits

How much did you Pay for Generic Drugs at CVS? There’s a potentially $65 million dollar question, which pharmacy customers of CVS Health Corporation (CVS) are looking to get answered. They filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that CVS employed a fraudulent scheme to overcharge millions of customers across the country for generic prescription drugs.

CVS is alleged to have implemented and maintained a false and deceptive pricing scheme affecting more than 400 generic drugs, forcing customers with health insurance to pay CVS copayments far higher than the usual and customary price CVS charged its cash-paying customers.

CVS generates approximately $67 billion in annual revenues from its retail pharmacy business, and plaintiffs allege that CVS’ wrongful overcharging is a significant percentage of those revenues.

According to the complaint, for seven years CVS has systematically been overcharging their insured consumers for prescriptions. The alleged scheme is especially harmful to those people with low or fixed incomes who use medications on a regular basis. Plaintiffs assert that the drug chain wrongfully has charged insured consumers inflated copayments on more than 400 generic medications, including some of the most commonly used drugs on the market today. According to the complaint, millions of people have been affected by this misconduct.

The plaintiffs seek to represent all consumers who were participants in third-party healthcare plans and who filled their prescriptions for certain generic drugs at CVS between November 2008 and the present, and paid more than prices available under the CVS Health Savings Pass program.

Top Settlements

Hip Implant Defect Award for Plaintiff. A first this week—with a jury in Los Angeles awarding $9.1 million to man who received a Durum Cup hip implant made by Zimmer. The defective products lawsuit alleged that Zimmer was aware of the design defect in its hip implant and was therefore negligent in designing it. The Durum cup implant allegedly causes bone and tissue damage that may lead to pain and replacement surgeries. This is the first such lawsuit to go against Zimmer, reportedly.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was implanted in some 13,000 patients before it was removed from the US market in 2008. Fifty-nine year old Gary Kline, from California, received the defective product in 2007 only to have it removed 15 months later. According to his lawsuit, he endured two “traumatic surgeries” in 15 months that caused scar tissue and muscle damage.

Finding in the plaintiff’s favor, the jury hearing Kline’s case found Zimmer negligent in the design of the Durom Cup and that the company failed to warn about the product’s defect.

The verdict includes about $153,000 in medical bills and $9 million in past and future non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Although Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy Hogue had denied a request for punitive damages, Kline’s lawyer said the jury awarded $3 million more than his client had asked.

Big Automotive News this Week… Fiat Chrysler is looking at ponying up a record $105 million in fines to the US government for violating laws in a series of vehicle safety recalls. Additionally, Fiat Chrysler will have to buy back 500,000 Ram pickup trucks and other vehicles in order to take them off the roads, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said.

The fines were prompted by Fiat Chrysler’s failure to act quickly enough on safety recalls. The fines are the biggest of their kind in US history.

According to media reports, owners of 1.54 million recalled older model jeeps with receive payments from the automaker. The jeeps have gas tanks behind the rear axle and are vulnerable and leak gasoline if damaged during a collision. Customers can bring them to dealers to install trailer hitches to help protect the tanks. FC is not buying back the Jeeps because it maintains those vehicles are as safe as comparable vehicles built at the time.

The NHSTA’s actions come less than a month after it held a public hearing into problems with 23 Fiat Chrysler recalls which affect over 11 million cars and trucks. At the hearing, NHTSA cited a long list of serious shortfalls, specifically, failure to notify customers of recalls; delays in making and distributing repair parts; and, in some cases, failing to come up with repairs that fix the problems. Some of the recalls date to 2013.

Ok – That’s a wrap folks…See you at the Bar folks!