Justice With Dr. V.

Greg Vigna

My name is Greg Vigna. I am a practicing physician and attorney and also a certified Life Care Planner and founder of the Life Care Solutions Group. As a father of three, and a practicing physician and attorney, I understand the importance of listening to people whose lives have been altered by major events such as a serious accident injury. Join me in my quest to help give those who have been seriously injured have a voice and raise awareness about the legal rights and available medical options for people who need medical/legal help in these cases.

  1. Apr 15

    Critical Medical Risks Explained: What Happens When Care Goes Wrong

    TRANSCRIPT: B: I'm Ben C. V: I'm Doctor V. The medical legal guys... spring training edition! V: So what have we been doing Ben Martin, over the past couple of weeks? What kind of comes to mind? B: Well, we've been handling up on coloplast. V: While the case Baltimore. And we're about to amend a complaint against coloplast and again catastrophic pain syndrome. B: Pudendal neuralgia.  V: Stiffness mesh worse outcomes with safer alternative designs. B: This is a mid urethral sling. So what’s a mid urethral sling? V: While mid urethral sling is used for women after they have childbirth they developed stress urinary incontinence as they get older.  B: And it doesn't just have to do with childbirth. People, male and female can have a stress urinary incontinence, which means they leak. Okay, the case of many women, it comes forth after childbirth, age, gravity and so the mid urethral slings here to supposedly help that issue those issues. And mid urethral sling is made of polypropylene. If it's a coloplast sling and that's a plastic. And, tell us a little bit about the Arif device. V: The aris is there trans operator sling it. Basically it's a sling that supports the mid urethra. And you have a vaginal component, and arm component that goes in the leg. B: Used to lift up the urethra, which is the tube that goes from the bladder and out the body to its failure. That right? V: Yeah. Polypropylene. The days of polypropylene are kind of on their way out because. B: Polypropylene is on the ropes. V: Basically. And it's because they're safer materials that don't include the plastic weave of mesh that causes inflammation and pain and erosions. And they have other materials that don't have that as they have less inflammation, they have less erosions, and the degree of inflammation is markablly less. And that other type of mesh is called PVD. And it doesn't shrink. Polypropylene shrinks. And if you have muscles under tension, a nerve is under tension. You could have muscle and nerve pain and unfortunately, those are the women that we represent. And we believe that this device, the outcomes show that it's the worst device. And warnings do not fully capture the frequency of risk and the severity of risks. And I don't think any doctor would choose polypropylene over PDVF. B: And Dr. V, a doctor who knows who has told the truth about this product, we say, wouldn't put in the product, or at least is going to tell the patient about the product. And once the patient is told the truth about the product, then the patient has a decision to make. And patients, if told the truth, will make the decision not to have this link.  V: So the big problem with this, in terms of pain, it causes 2.8 times the amount of frequency of dyspareunia. And that's kind of goes to the heart of the safety of the device because it's placed vaginally. But it also causes some extreme pain syndromes because it inserts on the obturator internist muscle, which is very close to various nerves. And that could cause muscle spasm, dystonia, pulling on nerves, and some serious pain syndromes. In PDF, it's gaining market share. And in Europe this PDF has been tested 1 to 1 against polypropylene trans obturator slings and was superior in terms of pain and erosions. And it's a better material. And so we're suing the manufacturer for failure to warn doctors of the specific increased risk of pain and dyspareunia, the severity of risks, but also that this is a design defect because there are safer materials that need to get to the market. And the Aris sling and the Altis device, they seem to be the worst. B: All right. So there's your co-op class. We could go on for hours for days, but, that's the general update on what these cases are about.  V: So we also filed a case. It's very important in Wisconsin okay. And it involves time is brain okay. And so it's a serious injury case. B: The time is brain doesn't have anything to do with the colo plast. Doesn't have anything to do with the med rurethral sling. So let's talk about a new case we filed in Wisconsin. And other cases exist that are similar to this case. V: Time is brain is now the standard of care. When a person presents to a hospital with symptoms or signs of a stroke, and there are certain tests that need to be done within a certain time frame, and interventions must be provided or offered because the outcomes are superior. When a person comes with an eschemic stroke from a blood clot in the brain.  B: Eschemic stroke. V: Yes. B: And hemorrhagic stroke two types of strokes and doctor V just explained hemorrhagic hemorrhagic. Very nice. And there's also the eschemic brain that involves a loss of oxygen because of a lack of blood flow or a lack of oxygen. That's an ischemia, stroke and a hemorrhagic stroke. Which doc was talking about in time is brain is the type where you actually have a bleed, vessel bleed in the brain, and that's a bad thing.  V: That's a bad thing. And obviously you want to get, proper care, proper blood pressure management, earlier treatment, the better, obviously, in terms of preventing complications. But clearly with ischemic strokes, you're on the clock, okay, to get this done. And our client unfortunately presented to the hospital had symptoms and signs we allege of a stroke. And then they didn't run the diagnostic test despite a code stroke that a nurse had significant concerns that a person was having a stroke and they didn't follow through on the policies and procedures. We allege in terms of the standard of care for the next test, which is to give a CT angiogram to see if there is a clot that can be either extracted with via thrombectomy, a catheter that can grab that clot and so that the blood flow can return, and or the thrombus lytic or blood clot clusters by veins. So it's really a sad situation. And then unfortunately, this gentleman then developed to a very big grade for bed sores. B: Alright. V: It's a nightmare hospitalization and could have been saved. He had other medical problems that would have been taken care of.  B: So Time is brain. And that's what this is all about. The faster you get to the patient, faster you understand what's going on with the patient, faster you diagnose the possible problems, and then the faster you get to the problem. It's very important because the faster you get, the better opportunity there will be to save that patient's health. V: And this occurred in the hospital within 12 hours, the change in neurological status. So it's kind of a bad story. B: It is a bad story. But I want to talk about with doctor V today is just kind of some of the general aspects of time is brain and general aspects of what kind of diagnoses are made, what kind of, indicators are there, what kind of diagnostic tests are there to make a determination as to whether or not somebody coming in with symptoms that are consistent with a stroke actually may be undergoing a stroke? And why time is brain is so, important. V: You know, these are serious. When you have a large vessel blood clot, that's like a hose that goes to various other parts of the brain. Okay. So it gets this hose and you lose a lot of brain, and the prognosis is significant. And the missed the large vessel stroke is very bad. And also small vessel stroke. There is benefit from thrombolysis better outcomes. B: You had to do them. You had to do the diagnostics to see what kind of thing was going on, what kind of things are going on with the patient. That's called doc V. We talked about this before. That's called making a differential diagnosis. And you see in medical records a lot argue that means rule out this particular condition, this other condition, this other particular condition. V: You know, a better code stroke. You know a nurse is ringing the bell. An ambulance driver is ringing the bell that they have a code stroke. And everyone in that hospital knows what should be done and what is next. Okay. It's a highly predicted diagnostic plan with certain minutes and and hours and windows where it shows outcomes are different. So there should have been nurses to say, hey, what about this? Okay. I mean, you have to think critically and understand, hey, this is what normally happens. Why why why not this case. Yeah. And ring the bell again. B: That code we're talking about. So that's important because once usually once a code is call, then it's being called because this patient is suffering from something that is likely to be a stroke or something else. Very serious. Don't call code if somebody is not having a serious problem. Is that right? V: Yeah. Yeah. There's coordination of care. There's expectations. You know, that the point that they then didn't identify or that there was a problem with the code strobe for two days.

  2. Apr 7

    Depo-Provera & Meningioma Risk: What the FDA Warning Means (Doctor Explains)

    TRANSCRIPT: B: I'm Ben C. V: I'm Doctor V. The Medical Legal Guys.. Casual Guys! V: So yeah. So we're talking about, a recent decision by the FDA that goes to warning physicians and women about the dangers of Depo-Provera. And this is a big, big aspect of the litigation. And why is this FDA warning important as it relates to this litigation?  B: So there's something called preemption, which basically is a legal concept that says if the federal government has preempted a state law, then you can't bring a case under that state law. And it's possible that preemption can result in the dissolution of coins. So that's basically the importance. But the argument was that, hey, if we had Pfizer, if we had told the federal government, the FDA that we wanted a warning, okay, then they may not have allowed us to have a warning. And they went a step further and they said, hey, we sought approval of a warning from the FDA. And the FDA said, no, okay, no warning. About a month ago, the FDA came out with a ruling, an order, and the FDA said, oh, yes, you must put a warning label on Depo-Provera about meningioma and indeed, there is one. So now, when they say it would be impossible to put a warning on because the FDA wouldn't allow it, they've allowed it. V: We're going to talk about the warning, and that the FDA has ordered Pfizer to change the label to notify physicians of the risk of meningioma. So Ben, do you want to read the sections from the warning? B: There are really two parts of the warning label the label change. Now, this is a 27 page document. We've talked about it before. And those are labels also called instructions for use or use instructions. And if you now look at what the FDA said, Pfizer must put under warnings and precautions. Meningioma discontinue Depo-Provera if meningioma is diagnosed. Monitor patients for signs and symptoms of meningioma. That's pretty straightforward. If if a doctor has a patient that has a meningioma, stop Depo-Provera. And there are reasons for that in the literature. And there's a second part of it and it's section 5.3. Let me get to it here. And that is 5.4. This is in the product insert the label, the packaging that goes with every injection of Depo-Provera.  That doctor has that warning at their disposal. Meningioma cases of meningioma have been reported following repeated administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate. That's Depo-Provera, primarily with long term use. Monitor patients on Depo-Provera for signs and symptoms of meningioma. Discontinue Depo-Provera if a meningioma is diagnosed. So that's kind of going back up to the top of the warnings. What that's what part of this is about. The other part, though, is an indicator that cases of meningioma have been reported in the literature following repeated administration. And it says generally for a long term use or long term use in the pharmaceutical industry, long term use could be anything over six months. Be anything over a year. And these studies sometimes will use that short period of time, six months for a year to mean, okay, well that's a long term use, right. So so don't get the idea that they're saying generally takes five or 10 or 15 years. Long term use can be a pretty short period of time. Yeah. V: So when I look at this label, you know, I see some issues. We're way past reported. Okay. So and we're going to go through the history. B: Of recorded, if you read the British Medical Journal article that that came out last year, and if you read that study by Doctor Rowland and others, it's way more than a sort of a case study or a few reports here and there. They studied 108,000 women. And compared to women who took Depo-Provera or had the Depo-Provera injected in their bodies versus those who did not in, that's where they found close to a 600% more probability that a woman went on Depo-Provera is going to develop a meningioma than if she had not had the Depo-Provera. So that's as dark versus that a lot more than a reported case or two, which seems to be what, what the labels sort of suggesting the reports. Could it have been stronger? Yes. But is it something the company is required to warn about Depo-Provera and its association with meningioma? And the answer now is yes. V: So in my view it's kind of a weak, weak warning. So we're going to go over the literature that kind of built up to this change. So we're going back to 2006. Was the first in the 20 years ago first indication that progestin have a relative risk for causing meningioma and explain what why relative risk of two is important from a legal standpoint.  B: So let me explain what relative risk is. So relative risk is the associated risk of being on a pharmaceutical like depo provera versus the risk as compared with someone that is not on the drug or has not taken the drug. If you have a relative risk that two or higher, then there's no question about its association. Relative risk of two means you're doubling the risk that it's a 100% increase in the risk. And if you got a 100% increase in the risk, then legally that is a an important distinction as opposed to just barely an association of pharmaceutical causing something. V: So so this article back in 2006 looked at birth control, types of birth control and their associations with gliomas, which is a type of brain tumor in meningioma and this article, 2006, showed that oral birth controls no increased relative risk of meningiomas, and when they combined the studies that looked at progestin that are embedded in IUDs and progestin that go underneath the skin and injections when they group those all together, that relative risk is two for prolonged use over five years. But the kicker is the IUD progestin. That dose is a lot less than Depo-Provera. B: Yes. V: So they have progestin in like Marina that are embedded in the IUD B: You call them, yes. V: So it's a form of birth control. So back in 2006, the pharmaceutical companies knew or should have known that progestins caused meningiomas. But if you look at the types, depo- Provera has a much higher dose of progestin than the other two forms, so it would have diluted the relative risk. B: I think what you're saying, doctor V, is that since we know there is a greater than two times risk of these other progestin, because Depo-Provera is a higher dosage, you would expect there to be a greater relative risk, right and right. V: So you're diluting the risk by having the two forms of birth control that don't cause meningioma. There's no Marina. There's no evidence that that causes meningeal. And then the underneath the skin progestin. We don't have the evidence that that causes meningioma. B: At this time. V: So they grouped both together. And the relative risk was still over two. That should trigger a study. That's right. You know you need to do something. And that's right. When the generics are getting rolled out, when generics are rolled out, the pharmaceutical liability goes way, way down. And explained why Pfizer when these medications were going generic, what would that do to Pfizer's liability? B: Well, there was a U.S. Supreme Court case some number of years ago that essentially said that a case involving a generic drug is really preempted. Okay. Talked about preemption earlier. And if it is a certain type of generic, okay, an unauthorized generic, we'll call it not authorized by the manufacturer or the founder, then there's no liability on the part of the manufacturers under certain circumstances. And generic manufacture under certain circumstances is seen as having no liability, essentially because they say, well, wait, we're just we're forced to use the same formula as the original manufacturer, right? In this case, when you get down to it for liability purposes, that would have been Pfizer. V: Yeah. So I'm thinking more of it that it's becoming generic. It's becoming a lot cheaper. It's being a more wide use because the price has gone down because it's going generic and Pfizer just sat there, looked at the data and did nothing. Okay. This is 2006. B: Yeah. You're talking about almost 20 years ago. V: 20 years ago, they could have studied. So then the next thing that really happened was 2015 study that identified the specific mutation that is associated with Depo-Provera. They didn't quite identify the link, but they identified the mutation that is most associated with Depo-Provera that causes multiple meningioma that tend to be on the skull base, which are the worst type of tumor.

About

My name is Greg Vigna. I am a practicing physician and attorney and also a certified Life Care Planner and founder of the Life Care Solutions Group. As a father of three, and a practicing physician and attorney, I understand the importance of listening to people whose lives have been altered by major events such as a serious accident injury. Join me in my quest to help give those who have been seriously injured have a voice and raise awareness about the legal rights and available medical options for people who need medical/legal help in these cases.