Stryker AccuLIF Recall Attorneys – San Diego, CA
Have You Had Back Surgery with the Stryker Acculif PL or TL Cage?
If so, you may entitled to compensation if this particular Stryker Spine medical device has collapsed or needed to be redone because it collapsed after being implanted in your body.
In July 2016, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported that AccuLIF Posterior Lumber Expandable Interbody implant customers received an “Urgent Recall Letter and Product Accountability Form” from Stryker Spine recommending they undergo a routine radiographic/clinical post-operation evaluation. In addition, the letter stated that patients experiencing abnormal changes or near-onset symptoms after implant surgery should seek radiographic/clinical evaluation as soon as possible.
The San Diego Stryker AccuLIF Recall attorneys at Buche & Associates are investigating legal claims for recipients of defective AccuLIF implants. If you have suffered the collapse of an AccuLIF implant and required another surgery to replace the implant, you may be entitled to compensation for your medical bills, pain and suffering and other damages. Call Buche & Associates at 858-459-9111 to schedule a consultation appointment today.
What is the AccuLIF Interbody System?
When a degenerative disease or traumatic accident severely damages the spine, parts of the spine may need reconstructed so that the patient can walk, stand and move normally. The AccuLIF implant was supposed to employ concise placement and delivery with controlled expansion to help anatomically reconstruct the spine during a fusion procedure.
Once inserted, the implant may expand, using a process involving steps inside, so that the implant creates a monolithic, rigid structure. In addition, the AccuLIF implant was designed to reduce the risk of nerve interference and damage to endplates during fusion surgery.
Unfortunately, the AccuLIF Posterior Lumber Expandable Interbody implant is now under legal scrutiny due to defects effecting its ability to perform as expected. Patients of the AccuLIF implant have reported failures of the device to integrate properly with their spine, expansion deficiencies and having to undergo revision surgeries to remove and replace the implant.
This is not the first time Stryker has been sued for marketing defective products.
Years of Lawsuits Against Stryker
For years, Stryker has litigated hip replacement lawsuits, specifically regarding defective hip replacement parts. Within one settlement, Stryker had to pay $1 billion to plaintiffs suffering revisions surgeries due to failed replacement parts. The largest compensation awards given to victims of defective hip replacement parts who had revision surgery reached $300,000.
If you think you may have a Stryker AccuLIF claim, call Buche & Associates in San Diego at 858-459-9111 to schedule a consultation appointment today.
What Happens When a Stryker AccuLIF Recall Attorney Takes My Case?
After we evaluate the circumstances of your claim and if we agree to accept your case, you will not be charged a fee unless you receive a settlement from Stryker for your medical bills, pain and suffering. We believe U.S. consumers should expect health and medical products exceed their performance expectations and that these products should not cause them to suffer pain and repeated surgeries.
Call Buche & Associates today at 858-459-9111 to speak to a San Diego Stryker AccuLIF Recall attorney.
What our Clients have to say...
Great... They helped me straighten out a patent 10 years ago and now I'm reaping the rewards. Thx JohnFlagPole Buddy2/14/2019
John and his team have been fantastic to work with. They are always responsive, professional and very knowledgeable. Highly recommended.Mark Leone2/09/2018
John and the associates at his firm have done some fantastic trademark and other intellectual property work for my business startup. His legal advice has been invaluable and I can't recommend his services enough.Jim B4/01/2014
I spoke with John and two of his attorneys about a the potential for patenting a bicycle braking apparatus. He was very knowledgeable and generous with his and his teams time. It turned out that the apparatus was not patentable but had it been we would have strongly considered Buche & Associates.MB S3/07/2014