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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2017-07, Vol.24 (5), p.727-730 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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</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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |