Request Legal Help Now - Free


Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Involves Medtronic Infuse

. By
Cincinnati, OHAlmost 100 plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against a doctor and Medtronic, alleging the patients underwent medically unnecessary surgery to have a Medtronic bone graft implanted. The plaintiffs allege in the Medtronic lawsuit that the surgeries were not only medically unnecessary, but also experimental, and put them at risk of suffering complications.

Courthouse News Service (3/26/13) reports that Dr. Abubakar Atiq Durrani, along with other plaintiffs, including Medtronic Sofamor Danek, faces lawsuits on behalf of 88 patients who say they were given unnecessary medical procedures using Medtronic medical devices, specifically the Infuse Bone Graft, also known as BMP-2. The lawsuit alleges Durrani is a paid consultant for Medtronic, and further alleges that during the surgeries, the Infuse was implanted for off-label uses without the patients’ consent. Finally, they allege, the doctor falsified records so he would be paid for the surgeries.

Regarding Medtronic, plaintiffs allege the company falsely marketed the medical device as safe and approved for use in cervical and thoracic spines when it was not approved for such uses. The lawsuit claims side effects associated with the Infuse Bone Graft include cancer, spinal stenosis, pain and problems breathing. Complications can reportedly arise within two weeks of surgery.

This is not the first time a doctor has faced serious allegations concerning Medtronic Infuse. In 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported on Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, who reportedly forged the signatures of co-authors on a study he performed regarding Medtronic Infuse and also used data based on “falsified information.” The study was published in 2008 in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery but was retracted in 2009.

The Wall Street Journal (5/19/9) notes that Dr. Kuklo is a Medtronic consultant, but the company said he was not a consultant when the study was conducted.

The Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft is used to stimulate bone growth. It was approved in 2002 for limited use in the lumbar spine, but not for the cervical or thoracic spine.

Lawsuits have been filed against Medtronic, alleging patients were harmed by the use of the bone graft.


Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft Legal Help

If you or a loved one have suffered losses in this case, please click the link below and your complaint will be sent to a defective products lawyer who may evaluate your Medtronic Infuse Bone Graft claim at no cost or obligation.


Posted by

i hads spinal stimulator put in my back 2 times first time it buzzed behind my knees they told me that leads were to high have to go back in when they did they turned machine on dropped me to my knees i yelled shut your right on my siatic nerve pain when right down my leg i find it hard to beleve that the sales rep tells the dr were to install both times connot blame dr was doing what he was told i had fallen 5 times on my face with no warnings whent to another valley pain consultant dr the medtronics rep was there and he told them that sh t needed to come out of my back and i needed to get fixed properly the medtronics man set it lightly on my legs with in one hour i could hardly walk had to drag my legs shut machine off went to dr and begged to have removed i also had a call from metronics the lady said happy anniversery on the machine told her that was not happy told her that the reps told the dr were to put the leads she then told my that they connot do that they are just reps i told her before she sounded stupid again you need to find out what they do

Posted by

have a question.I spoke with a few law firms.The one firm i signed up with just got back to me.They said my injury was not directly caused by the infuse.I had an off label procedure and i am disabled.But as i look from 1 site to the next they are being sued for Manufacture defective product,failure to warn,negligence,failure to recall defective product,conceal side affects.I dont understand off label injury or not i wouldn't have had this stuff put in me if i knew it raised the risk of cancer,which a few of my family members have passed away from.So is it you have to be directly injured by the product or being lied about the product.Either way i was told i would be 85-95 % better,which is total opposite.


Fields marked * are mandatory. Please read our comment guidelines before posting.


Note: Your name will be published with your comment.

*Email Address:

Your email will only be used if a response is needed.
*Your Comment:

Are you the defendant or a subject matter expert on this topic with an opposing viewpoint? We'd love to hear your comments here as well, or if you'd like to contact us for an interview please submit your details here.

Click to learn more about

Request Legal Help Now! - Free