Medicolegal Review: Essure Lawsuits and Legal Strategies Adverse to Gynecologists

Abstract The minimally invasive Essure procedure for hysteroscopic sterilization is an ongoing target for litigation. While efficacious, this device’s safety has been scrutinized by the FDA due to alleged complications. Patients affected by these potential complications are filing lawsuits against B...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2017-07, Vol.24 (5), p.727-730
Hauptverfasser: Klimczak, Amber M., MD, Snyder, Russell R., MD, Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD, Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 730
container_issue 5
container_start_page 727
container_title Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
container_volume 24
creator Klimczak, Amber M., MD
Snyder, Russell R., MD
Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD
Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM
description Abstract The minimally invasive Essure procedure for hysteroscopic sterilization is an ongoing target for litigation. While efficacious, this device’s safety has been scrutinized by the FDA due to alleged complications. Patients affected by these potential complications are filing lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure. Many of these lawsuits have been barred by preemption, a legal doctrine that limits what can be required of a product by state lawsuits once the FDA approves it. However, of the lawsuits allowed to proceed, the manufacturer has used a legal strategy termed the learned intermediary doctrine in an effort to shift blame to the gynecologist to absolve itself of liability. The learned intermediary only requires that a manufacturer inform the gynecologist of the risks associated with the device, and the gynecologist, in turn, must notify the patients through adequate informed consent. To incorporate the necessary components of informed consent, a gynecologist should include what a reasonable practitioner would consider pertinent to the discussion as well as what a prudent patient would want to know to make a treatment decision. This disclosure entails explaining the risks, benefits, and alternatives, which should be clearly documented in the medical records. Understanding the importance of proper documentation and the legal strategies used in suits will help gynecologists lessen liability exposure when using a medical device, such as Essure, being targeted for litigation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.017
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1874445147</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1553465017301772</els_id><sourcerecordid>1874445147</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d3bf1978ad51376ad867c8de46420bb672f0e29527a959d1765e3dff1e54ae563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUlv2zAQhYmiRbP-gR4KHXuxQlJcpKIoYATZABdFs5wJmhwZVGUp5Ugx_O9DxYkPOfQweHN47wHzDSFfGM0ZZeqsyZt1WOWcMp1Tnif5QA6ZlMVMKFV93O-SHpAjxIbSQlOqPpMDXnIpJC0OyZ9f4IPrW1jZNruFpwCb79kF4hghW9gNjmHAzHY-W7w47oZoB1gFwGzunyAiZEOfXW07SB39KuCAJ-RTbVuE01c9Jg-XF_fn17PF76ub8_li5gRjw8wXy5pVurReskIr60ulXelBKMHpcqk0rynwSnJtK1l5ppWEwtc1AyksSFUck2-73sfY_xsBB7MO6KBtbQf9iIaVWgghmdDJyndWF3vECLV5jGFt49YwaiaUpjETSjOhNJSbJCn09bV_XK7B7yNv7JLhx84A6coELhp0ATqXgEZwg_F9-H__z3dx14YuONv-hS1g04-xS_wMM5gC5m565vTLFE2jefEMXtiZeA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1874445147</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Medicolegal Review: Essure Lawsuits and Legal Strategies Adverse to Gynecologists</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Klimczak, Amber M., MD ; Snyder, Russell R., MD ; Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD ; Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</creator><creatorcontrib>Klimczak, Amber M., MD ; Snyder, Russell R., MD ; Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD ; Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract The minimally invasive Essure procedure for hysteroscopic sterilization is an ongoing target for litigation. While efficacious, this device’s safety has been scrutinized by the FDA due to alleged complications. Patients affected by these potential complications are filing lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure. Many of these lawsuits have been barred by preemption, a legal doctrine that limits what can be required of a product by state lawsuits once the FDA approves it. However, of the lawsuits allowed to proceed, the manufacturer has used a legal strategy termed the learned intermediary doctrine in an effort to shift blame to the gynecologist to absolve itself of liability. The learned intermediary only requires that a manufacturer inform the gynecologist of the risks associated with the device, and the gynecologist, in turn, must notify the patients through adequate informed consent. To incorporate the necessary components of informed consent, a gynecologist should include what a reasonable practitioner would consider pertinent to the discussion as well as what a prudent patient would want to know to make a treatment decision. This disclosure entails explaining the risks, benefits, and alternatives, which should be clearly documented in the medical records. Understanding the importance of proper documentation and the legal strategies used in suits will help gynecologists lessen liability exposure when using a medical device, such as Essure, being targeted for litigation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1553-4650</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-4669</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.017</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28254503</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Essure ; Female ; Gynecology - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects ; Intrauterine Devices - standards ; Jurisprudence ; Lawsuit ; Liability, Legal ; Medical Records ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Sterilization ; Sterilization, Reproductive - adverse effects ; Sterilization, Reproductive - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Surgery ; United States ; United States Food and Drug Administration</subject><ispartof>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2017-07, Vol.24 (5), p.727-730</ispartof><rights>2017 AAGL</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d3bf1978ad51376ad867c8de46420bb672f0e29527a959d1765e3dff1e54ae563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d3bf1978ad51376ad867c8de46420bb672f0e29527a959d1765e3dff1e54ae563</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0554-132X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1553465017301772$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28254503$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Klimczak, Amber M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Russell R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</creatorcontrib><title>Medicolegal Review: Essure Lawsuits and Legal Strategies Adverse to Gynecologists</title><title>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</title><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><description>Abstract The minimally invasive Essure procedure for hysteroscopic sterilization is an ongoing target for litigation. While efficacious, this device’s safety has been scrutinized by the FDA due to alleged complications. Patients affected by these potential complications are filing lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure. Many of these lawsuits have been barred by preemption, a legal doctrine that limits what can be required of a product by state lawsuits once the FDA approves it. However, of the lawsuits allowed to proceed, the manufacturer has used a legal strategy termed the learned intermediary doctrine in an effort to shift blame to the gynecologist to absolve itself of liability. The learned intermediary only requires that a manufacturer inform the gynecologist of the risks associated with the device, and the gynecologist, in turn, must notify the patients through adequate informed consent. To incorporate the necessary components of informed consent, a gynecologist should include what a reasonable practitioner would consider pertinent to the discussion as well as what a prudent patient would want to know to make a treatment decision. This disclosure entails explaining the risks, benefits, and alternatives, which should be clearly documented in the medical records. Understanding the importance of proper documentation and the legal strategies used in suits will help gynecologists lessen liability exposure when using a medical device, such as Essure, being targeted for litigation.</description><subject>Essure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed Consent</subject><subject>Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects</subject><subject>Intrauterine Devices - standards</subject><subject>Jurisprudence</subject><subject>Lawsuit</subject><subject>Liability, Legal</subject><subject>Medical Records</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Sterilization</subject><subject>Sterilization, Reproductive - adverse effects</subject><subject>Sterilization, Reproductive - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Food and Drug Administration</subject><issn>1553-4650</issn><issn>1553-4669</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUlv2zAQhYmiRbP-gR4KHXuxQlJcpKIoYATZABdFs5wJmhwZVGUp5Ugx_O9DxYkPOfQweHN47wHzDSFfGM0ZZeqsyZt1WOWcMp1Tnif5QA6ZlMVMKFV93O-SHpAjxIbSQlOqPpMDXnIpJC0OyZ9f4IPrW1jZNruFpwCb79kF4hghW9gNjmHAzHY-W7w47oZoB1gFwGzunyAiZEOfXW07SB39KuCAJ-RTbVuE01c9Jg-XF_fn17PF76ub8_li5gRjw8wXy5pVurReskIr60ulXelBKMHpcqk0rynwSnJtK1l5ppWEwtc1AyksSFUck2-73sfY_xsBB7MO6KBtbQf9iIaVWgghmdDJyndWF3vECLV5jGFt49YwaiaUpjETSjOhNJSbJCn09bV_XK7B7yNv7JLhx84A6coELhp0ATqXgEZwg_F9-H__z3dx14YuONv-hS1g04-xS_wMM5gC5m565vTLFE2jefEMXtiZeA</recordid><startdate>20170701</startdate><enddate>20170701</enddate><creator>Klimczak, Amber M., MD</creator><creator>Snyder, Russell R., MD</creator><creator>Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD</creator><creator>Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0554-132X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170701</creationdate><title>Medicolegal Review: Essure Lawsuits and Legal Strategies Adverse to Gynecologists</title><author>Klimczak, Amber M., MD ; Snyder, Russell R., MD ; Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD ; Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-d3bf1978ad51376ad867c8de46420bb672f0e29527a959d1765e3dff1e54ae563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Essure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed Consent</topic><topic>Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects</topic><topic>Intrauterine Devices - standards</topic><topic>Jurisprudence</topic><topic>Lawsuit</topic><topic>Liability, Legal</topic><topic>Medical Records</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Sterilization</topic><topic>Sterilization, Reproductive - adverse effects</topic><topic>Sterilization, Reproductive - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Food and Drug Administration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Klimczak, Amber M., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Russell R., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Klimczak, Amber M., MD</au><au>Snyder, Russell R., MD</au><au>Borahay, Mostafa A., MD, PhD</au><au>Phelps, John Y., MD, JD, LLM</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Medicolegal Review: Essure Lawsuits and Legal Strategies Adverse to Gynecologists</atitle><jtitle>Journal of minimally invasive gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>J Minim Invasive Gynecol</addtitle><date>2017-07-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>727</spage><epage>730</epage><pages>727-730</pages><issn>1553-4650</issn><eissn>1553-4669</eissn><abstract>Abstract The minimally invasive Essure procedure for hysteroscopic sterilization is an ongoing target for litigation. While efficacious, this device’s safety has been scrutinized by the FDA due to alleged complications. Patients affected by these potential complications are filing lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Essure. Many of these lawsuits have been barred by preemption, a legal doctrine that limits what can be required of a product by state lawsuits once the FDA approves it. However, of the lawsuits allowed to proceed, the manufacturer has used a legal strategy termed the learned intermediary doctrine in an effort to shift blame to the gynecologist to absolve itself of liability. The learned intermediary only requires that a manufacturer inform the gynecologist of the risks associated with the device, and the gynecologist, in turn, must notify the patients through adequate informed consent. To incorporate the necessary components of informed consent, a gynecologist should include what a reasonable practitioner would consider pertinent to the discussion as well as what a prudent patient would want to know to make a treatment decision. This disclosure entails explaining the risks, benefits, and alternatives, which should be clearly documented in the medical records. Understanding the importance of proper documentation and the legal strategies used in suits will help gynecologists lessen liability exposure when using a medical device, such as Essure, being targeted for litigation.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28254503</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.017</doi><tpages>4</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0554-132X</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1553-4650
ispartof Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2017-07, Vol.24 (5), p.727-730
issn 1553-4650
1553-4669
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1874445147
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Essure
Female
Gynecology - legislation & jurisprudence
Humans
Informed Consent
Intrauterine Devices - adverse effects
Intrauterine Devices - standards
Jurisprudence
Lawsuit
Liability, Legal
Medical Records
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Sterilization
Sterilization, Reproductive - adverse effects
Sterilization, Reproductive - legislation & jurisprudence
Surgery
United States
United States Food and Drug Administration
title Medicolegal Review: Essure Lawsuits and Legal Strategies Adverse to Gynecologists
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T06%3A52%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Medicolegal%20Review:%20Essure%20Lawsuits%20and%20Legal%20Strategies%20Adverse%20to%20Gynecologists&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20minimally%20invasive%20gynecology&rft.au=Klimczak,%20Amber%20M.,%20MD&rft.date=2017-07-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=727&rft.epage=730&rft.pages=727-730&rft.issn=1553-4650&rft.eissn=1553-4669&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.02.017&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1874445147%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1874445147&rft_id=info:pmid/28254503&rft_els_id=S1553465017301772&rfr_iscdi=true