A Closer Look at Defective Medical Devices and Mass Tort Litigation: Navigating the Complex Legal Landscape

December 14, 2023


The use of medical devices is more prevalent than ever, with new advancements being made frequently. Although medical devices are designed to improve the quality of life for patients, sometimes, these devices are defective. When this happens, patients may suffer serious harm and need to seek compensation. Mass tort litigation is a legal process that allows multiple people who have been harmed by the same product to file a lawsuit against the manufacturer. In this article, we will take a closer look at what defective medical devices are and how mass tort litigation works, so you can better understand the complex legal landscape.


Defective medical devices are those that don't work as intended or cause harm to patients. There are several types of medical devices, including implants, medical equipment, drug delivery systems, and surgical instruments. It is not uncommon for these devices to have certain defects in their design, manufacturing, or marketing that can lead to injuries and complications. For example, metal-on-metal hip replacements can cause metallosis, and IVC filters can perforate veins, leading to severe bleeding and blood clot formation.


The first step in mass tort litigation is to find an attorney who will represent you in your lawsuit. These attorneys have experience in dealing with complex medical and legal issues and can help guide you through the process. It is crucial to find an attorney who has a record of success in mass tort litigation and who will work hard to get you the compensation you deserve.


Once you have hired an attorney, they will begin the process of filing your lawsuit. Your attorney will gather medical records, witness statements, and other evidence to support your case. They will also work closely with experts in the medical field to understand the complexities of your injury and how it was caused.


As with any legal process, mass tort litigation can be lengthy and challenging. It requires patience and an understanding of the legal and medical complexities of your case. However, the rewards can be significant, with victims receiving substantial compensation for their injuries.


Defective medical devices can lead to serious injuries and complications for patients. While the mass tort litigation process can be complicated, finding an experienced mass tort attorney can help you navigate the complex legal landscape. It is essential to find an attorney who will work closely with you and your family to get you the compensation you deserve. With the right legal team on your side, you can fight for your rights and hold the manufacturers accountable for their negligence.
Contact one of our attorneys for a free consultation on how we can help you if you’ve been affected by a defective medical device. 



Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.