New York: Professional Malpractice—Claim Against Engineering Client Dismissed in Kings County (Brooklyn), by Robert A. Fitch and Bryan J. Ferrara. John C. McMeekin II to speak at ABA TIPS Conference on May 1, 2019, in New York City. Craig D. Baron to speak at ABA TIPS 1st Annual Insurance Claims Institute on April 30, 2019. Michael J. Logullo was guest lecturer at Widener University’s Tourism and Hospitality Management School in February 2019. Todd K. Foster joins Philadelphia office, focuses on workers’ compensation matters.
Cheng I. To promoted to partnership; Anisha S. Abraham joins Philadelphia office; Matthew G. Chapman joins West Virginia office; Favorable Order from Commonwealth Ct. of PA on extra-territorial jurisdiction issue in WC case, by Zachary M. Rubinich; Tara Gill Nalencz speaks at Temple University Beasley School of Law State Court Honors Interns program; Patrice S. O’Brien participates in review of breast cancer research program for Dept. of Defense.
John C. McMeekin II to speak at 2019 CLM Conf. in March; R&H ranks among top PA firms in size and diversity; Zachary M. Rubinich to speak at 2019 ABA Workers’ Comp. Midwinter Conf.; Phila. Business Journal ranks firm in top 25 Phila. law firms in 2019 Book of Lists; Nigel A. Greene to speak at PBI seminar on “Truck Accident Litigation” on Feb. 22; Brett A. Wolfson participated in Phila. Support Center for Child Advocates’ Toy Drive on Dec. 22; Robert L. Hogan joins Pittsburgh office as Of Counsel; Jason B. Rojas joins Phila. office as associate.
PA Workers’ Compensation “Fix” Leaves Many Unanswered Questions, by Claudio J. DiPaolo. New Attorneys William C. Stubits, Gabriel A. Arevalo and Nicolas B. Pedone.
Fred B. Buck named Chair of Federal Civil Procedure Committee of ACTL; Bryan J. Ferrara named Of Counsel; Zachary M. Rubinich speaks at Phila. WC Seminar; Lisa L. Prince to speak at DRI Personal Injury Practicum in November; Rawle & Henderson LLP participates in Global Citizen School Supply Drive; David R. Chludzinski re-elected to serve on Allegheny County Bar Assn.’s Civil Litigation Section Council; New additions Edward J. Chiodo, Sarah J. Simkin and Samuel A. Garson.
Robert A. Fitch named a 2018 New York Metro Super Lawyer. New York: Appellate - Dismissal of Dental Malpractice Case Affirmed, by Sylvia E. Lee. New York: Appellate - Protective Order Limiting Further Deposition of Oral Surgeon Client Affirmed, by Robert A. Fitch and Sylvia E. Lee.
2018 PENNSYLVANIA RISING STARS: David Chludzinski and Kimberly House. PENNSYLVANIA: PREMISES LIABILITY - Summary Judgment Granted in Slip and Fall Based on “Hills and Ridges” Doctrine, by Nigel A. Greene. Brian Lowenberg joins R&H as Of Counsel. Zach Rubinich appointed Chair of ABA’s Tort Trial and Insurance Practice (TIPS) Workers’ Compensation & Employers’ Liability Law Committee. Colin McIntyre joins Philadelphia office of R&H as associate. R&H ranks in top 150 local employers in Philadelphia Business Journal survey.
NEW PARTNER: J. Brendan O'Brien joins Philadelphia office. NEW ASSOCIATES: Daniel S. Lyons, Adam K. Gallagher. John C. McMeekin II to speak at NJ Asbestos Litigation Conference in September 2018. Scott Griffith speaks at Constitution Program in May 2018.
2018 SUPER LAWYERS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 12 attorneys have been selected as 2018 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: New Partners Sebastian Goldstein and Craig Baron. Robert Fitch, Anthony Luis presented a seminar to insurance claims professionals at XL Catlin in February 2018. Zachary Rubinich presented a WC seminar to insurance industry professionals in Pennsauken, NJ, in March 2017. Brett Wolfson was recently selected by the Philadelphia Support Center for Child Advocates to chair Rawle & Henderson LLP’s Child Advocacy Practice Group. Fred Buck sat as a judge for an ABA Regional Trial Competition in February 2018. Julie Nord Friedman speaks at ABA Toxic Torts & Environmental Law 27th Annual Spring CLE Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona in April 2018. New Associate Hillary C. Cox.
NEW YORK: ORAL SURGERY MALPRACTICE—Summary Judgment in Queens County, by Robert A. Fitch and Stephen J. Levy. NEW YORK: PERSONAL INJURY—Summary Judgment Granted on Behalf of Snow Removal Company and Retail Liquor Store, by Anthony D. Luis. Robert A. Fitch, Maryanne Kolenovsky and Paul E. Blutman to speak at 2018 PIAA Dental Workshop April 11-13 in Santa Monica, CA.
John C. McMeekin II elected Vice Chair of the American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section. Rawle & Henderson LLP ranked among top 30 Pennsylvania law firms in size & diversity. Tara Gill Nalencz speaks at Temple University Beasley School of Law State Court Honors Interns program.
PENNSYLVANIA: PERSONAL INJURY - Mechanical Bull Rider’s Lawsuit “Tossed” by Philadelphia Court, by Evan S. Eisner. Zachary M. Rubinich to speak at 2018 ABA Workers' Compensation Midwinter Conference. Sylvia E. Lee named Of Counsel to the Firm. Paul E. Blutman speaks at Greater New York Dental Meeting.
NEW YORK: PREMISES LIABILITY―Dismissal of Claim Against Engineering Company Client, by Robert A. Fitch and Diana Kane. David Rosenbaum appointed to serve as Firm's General Counsel. Franklin C. Love and Michael R. Lobick named Of Counsel. Patrice S. O'Brien participates in review of breast cancer research applications for Department of Defense.
NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE - Summary Judgment for Trucking Company and Its Good Samaritan Driver. By Anthony D. Luis and Sylvia E. Lee. PENNSYLVANIA: PRODUCT LIABILITY - Defense Verdict in Wheelchair Accident Case. By Brett A. Wolfson. Tara Gill Nalencz speaks at PA Bar Institute Seminar on Evidentiary Issues in December 2017.
Pennsylvania: Premises Liability―Defense Verdict in Philadelphia. By Franklin C. Love. Pennsylvania: Summary Judgment Based On Borrowed Employee Doctrine. By Amy N. Gampico.
Jack Snyder selected by Philadelphia Business Journal as one of 2017 “Best of the Bar: Philadelphia’s Top Lawyers"; Robert Fitch, James Modzelewski selected as 2017 NY Super Lawyers; Anthony Luis speaks at Arkansas Trucking Seminar; John McMeekin, Julie Nord Friedman speak at FETTI Conference; Zach Rubinich appointed Chair-Elect of ABA TIPS Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability Law Committee for 2018-2019; Corrine Williams joins Philadelphia office.
PENNSYLVANIA: PERSONAL INJURY―Statutory Employer Defense Alive and Well in Philadelphia. By Suzanne Curran Murphy. On February 19, 2015, plaintiff was working at a renovation project as an electrician employed by an electrical subcontractor.
NEW YORK: PERSONAL INJURY - Appellate Division Affirms Summary Judgment in Snow & Ice Cases, By Bryan J. Ferrara and Robert A. Fitch. The Second Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division recently affirmed lower court decisions awarding summary judgment and dismissal of all claims in favor of a defendant snow removal contractor in a case venued in Nassau County Supreme Court.
Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that David R. Chludzinski, Kimberly A. House, Jeffrey L. Oster and Christina A. Gonzales have been selected as 2017 Pennsylvania Rising Stars by Super Lawyers and Law & Politics Magazine.
Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 12 attorneys have been selected as 2017 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics. The process started with thousands of ballots being sent to attorneys in Pennsylvania. Then practice-specific “Blue Ribbon” panels reviewed the selections and listed the nominees with the highest scores. The attorneys chosen represent the top 5% of attorneys in Pennsylvania.
NEW YORK: PERSONAL INJURY, Summary Judgment in Snow & Ice Cases, by Robert A. Fitch and Robert F. Fanning. PITTSBURGH PARTNER: William T. “Will” Polaski has joined our Pittsburgh office. David Ira Rosenbaum served as co-chair and co-emcee at Spring 2017 Conference of the Product Liability Advisory Council.
John C. McMeekin II speaks at ABA Toxic Torts & Environmental Law Conference; Zach Rubinich selected as member of the ABA TIPS Diversity Committee; Erica M. Wicas selected as Social Media/Technology Vice-Chair of the ABA TIPS Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability Law Committee; Komen Race for the Cure; Dolan Memorial Fund; PaLaw Survey; In Memoriam: Victor F. Panieczko.
Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 21 attorneys were named 2017 AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell’s AV Preeminent® rating, the highest rating given by Martindale-Hubbell’s® Peer Review Ratings™ system.
Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Summary Judgment. By Carl D. Buchholz, III. Announcements: John C. McMeekin II elected Section Secretary of ABA TIPS; Nigel A. Greene to speak at ABA Transportation Megaconference XIII on March 9, 2017; Patrice S. O’Brien was selected to participate as a consumer reviewer for the Breast Cancer Research Program of the U.S. Dept. of Defense in January 2017.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Refuses to Reinstate Defamation Case. By Angela M. Heim. On September 27, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the petition filed by plaintiffs seeking further appellate review of Superior Court’s Order and Opinion of February 5, 2016, affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of L.A. Fitness International, LLC (now known as Fitness International, LLC), thus effectively ending a defamation case in which plaintiffs claimed that employees of L.A. Fitness falsely and maliciously reported to the local police and others that they were involved in thefts at one or more L.A. Fitness facilities.
The Paralegal’s Role in the New World of Cybersecurity. By Victor F. Panieczko. Cyberattacks have affected virtually every industry. These include, but are not limited to, health care, education, finance, energy, retail, hospitality and government. Most of us have seen or heard about the security breaches of Home Depot Inc., eBay Inc., Target Corp., Sony Pictures Entertainment, JPMorgan Chase, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. What is cybersecurity?
New York Super Lawyers. New Associate in New York City Office. Gary Stewart to speak at TIDA Annual Seminar in Baltimore in October 2016. John McMeekin and Julie Nord Friedman spoke at Annual National Forum for Environmental & Toxic Tort IssuesConference in Chicago in September 2016.
PENNSYLVANIA: HEALTH CARE DATA BREACH. Superior Court Affirms Decision to Deny Class Action Status. By Charles A. Fitzpatrick, III. On April 26, 2016, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the decision of the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court to deny class action status in the case of Baum v. AmeriHealth Caritas.
Pennsylvania: Toxic Torts. PA Supreme Court Denies Plaintiff’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal in Asbestos Case. On June 21, 2016, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an Order denying the Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by James Herbert, Executor of the Estate of Vincent W. Gatto, Sr., Deceased, which challenged the January 12, 2016 Order of the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirming the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ten manufacturers and/or distributors of asbestos-containing products.
PENNSYLVANIA RISING STARS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that Kimberly A. House and David R. Chludzinski have been selected as 2016 Pennsylvania Rising Stars by Super Lawyers and Law & Politics Magazine.
2016 PENNSYLVANIA SUPER LAWYERS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 11 attorneys have been selected as 2016 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics and the publishers of Philadelphia Magazine.
NEW YORK: Labor Law. Summary Judgment for Defendant. NEW YORK: Labor Law. Brooklyn Judge Expands Labor Law §240(1) to Apply to a Tiki Hut. By Robert A. Fitch and Derek E. Barrett.
Rawle & Henderson LLP ranked among top 30 PA law firms in size & diversity. Rawle & Henderson LLP has been ranked 28th among the top 100 firms in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for 2015, according to the PaLaw Annual Report on the Legal Profession, a supplement to The Legal Intelligencer.
Pennsylvania: Personal Injury—Defense Verdict in Philadelphia County. By Suzanne Curran Murphy. Plaintiffs Bernice Byrd and Barbara Jackson alleged that they were injured while occupying a parked car that was struck by a vehicle operated by an employee of Chestnut Wash and Lube, Inc. Plaintiffs filed suit against Chestnut Wash and Lube, Inc. and its employee, Martin Felix Cabrera. Defendants’ primary defense in the case was that the plaintiffs were not inside the parked vehicle at the time of the collision.
Rawle’s Reports, January 2016: Announcements. New Partners. Attorneys named Of Counsel to the Firm. New Delaware Attorneys. Salvation Army Toy Drive. Philadelphia Bar Association events.
ST. JOSEPH’S UNIVERSITY LAW ALUMNI AWARD. Jack Snyder, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Rawle & Henderson LLP, received the Honorable Francis X. McClanaghan ’27 Award on November 23, 2015, from St. Joseph’s University at its annual Law Alumni Awards Dinner at the Union League in Philadelphia. WORKERS' COMPENSATION ALERT. By Zach Rubinich.
New Jersey: Defense Verdict in ATV Case. By Caroline S. Vahey. A Burlington County Superior Court jury recently returned a defense verdict after a three-week trial in the matter of Kyle Deitrich v. Ward Sand.
PENNSYLVANIA—Toxic Torts - A Long and Winding Road: Unique Frye Motion Granted in Allegheny County. By Eric K. Falk. On July 22, 2015, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County decided a Frye issue that had been pending for over two years in January v. Koppers, et al.
NEW YORK SUPER LAWYERs. Robert A. Fitch has been named a 2015 New York Metro Super Lawyer by the publishers of Law & Politics. James Modzelewski, a partner in the Long Island office of Rawle & Henderson LLP, has been selected as a 2015 New York Super Lawyer. NEW YORK RISING STAR. Nicole Del Vecchio has been selected as 2015 New York Metro Rising Star by the publishers of Law & Politics Magazine.
PENNSYLVANIA RISING STAR: David R. Chludzinski. CONSTITUTION PROGRAM: presented to Holy Cross Parish School by Scott Griffith. KOMEN RACE FOR THE CURE. CHRISTINE HARVAN MEMORIAL LAW LIBRARY. PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION EVENTS.
2015 SUPER LAWYERS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 12 attorneys have been selected as 2015 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics and the publishers of Philadelphia Magazine.
NEW PARTNER. Kimberly A. Lapworth, an attorney in the firm’s Philadelphia office, was elected a partner effective January 1, 2015. GO-TO LAW FIRM. For the fourth consecutive year, Rawle & Henderson LLP has been selected as a Go-To Law Firm for the Top 500 Companies by American Lawyer Media (ALM). LONG ISLAND OFFICE. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that three new attorneys have joined our Long Island office. Maryanne Kolenovsky, James Modzelewski, and Rachel Greenberg.
PENNSYLVANIA: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE—$19.5 Million Jury Verdict Vacated. By Patrice O'Brien and Charles A. Fitzpatrick, III. On November 19, 2014, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a jury’s verdict and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict in a case in which $19.5 million was awarded to the widow of a woman who died due to complications related to a polyp removal.
PENNSYLVANIA: Appellate—First Amendment Decision. By Angela M. Heim and John C. McMeekin II. John C. McMeekin II, a partner in Rawle & Henderson LLP’s Philadelphia office, represented members of Pennsylvania’s Underground Storage Tank Indemnification Board in a case filed in federal court by a remediation contractor and its owner claiming that they lost a government contract in retaliation for constitutionally protected activity in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Pennsylvania: Construction—Defense Award. By Daniel J. Rucket. Daniel J. Rucket, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Rawle & Henderson LLP, received a defense award at a binding arbitration in a construction accident case venued in Philadelphia County.
PENNSYLVANIA: CONSTRUCTION — Summary Judgment. On January 30, 2014, the Honorable John M. Younge of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Rawle & Henderson’s client, a major national upscale hotel chain, in the matter of Alphonso Jones v. Intech Construction, et al.
PENNSYLVANIA RISING STARS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that Tara Gill Nalencz, David R. Chludzinski and Lane E. Brody have been selected as 2014 Pennsylvania Rising Stars by Super Lawyers and Law & Politics Magazine. Rising Stars are the top 2.5 percent of attorneys in Pennsylvania who are 40 years old and younger or have been in practice for 10 years or less.
NEW YORK SUPER LAWYER. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that Robert A. Fitch has been named a 2014 New York Metro Super Lawyer by the publishers of Law & Politics. LONG ISLAND OFFICE. In addition to our current New York City office at 14 Wall Street, Rawle & Henderson LLP has opened another office in New York, on Long Island at 170 Old Country Road, Mineola, NY.
2014 SUPER LAWYERS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 11 attorneys have been selected as 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics.
PENNSYLVANIA: NEGLIGENCE & PUNITIVE DAMAGES - Battlefield Tort Case. By Evan S. Eisner. Rawle & Henderson attorney Evan S. Eisner and his trial team successfully defended a negligence and punitive damages case stemming from a November 2009 crash on a Kuwaiti desert road. The crash resulted in the death of two United States Navy Reservists who were serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
NEW YORK: Insurance Coverage. By Robert A. Fitch and Derek E. Barrett. On July 10, 2010, Wieslaw Kantorowicz was injured when he fell from a roof on which he was working at a project in Long Beach New York Middle School. The owner of the property—the Long Beach City School District—had hired our client, an engineering firm, as its construction manager.
PENNSYLVANIA: APPELLATE — Underground Storage Tank Fund, by Carl D. Buchholz, III. NEW YORK: LABOR LAW — Settlement in Burn Case, by Derek E. Barrett.
Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that 16 attorneys were named 2014 AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell’s AV Preeminent® rating, the highest rating given by Martindale-Hubbell’s® Peer Review Ratings™ system.
PENNSYLVANIA: APPELLATE — Affirmed. By Carl D. Buchholz, III. Plaintiff John Keffer was involved in a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 95 in Philadelphia on September 24, 2007. Keffer sustained serious injuries when he rear-ended a tow truck being driven by defendant James Gladu and owned by defendant Bob Nolan’s Auto Service, Inc.
PITTSBURGH: Melanoma Litigation, Defense Verdict. By Charles A. Buechel, Jr. A jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, found in favor of Rawle & Henderson’s client, Tropical Illusions Tanning Salon, resulting in a defense verdict that saved Tropical Illusions from substantial monetary exposure.
PENNSYLVANIA: CATASTROPHIC LOSS — Set Aside: $20M Verdict. by John J. Snyder and William J. Carr. On August 5, 2013, in Ruick and Holly Rolland v. Modern, et al., Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, December Term 2009, No. 03110, the Honorable John Milton Younge vacated a $20 million verdict following oral argument on Post-Trial Motions.
NEW YORK SUPER LAWYER. Rawle & Henderson LLP is proud to announce that Robert A. Fitch has been named a 2013 New York Metro Super Lawyer by the publishers of Law & Politics.
2013 SUPER LAWYERS. Rawle & Henderson LLP is proud to announce that 12 attorneys were named 2013 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics.
PENNSYLVANIA: ASBESTOS LITIGATION - Superior Court Reinstates Jury’s Verdict In Favor of Defendants. by Carl D. Buchholz, III. In Webber v. Honeywell International, Inc., et al., the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently reversed two orders of the trial court which attempted to vacate a jury’s verdict in favor of the three asbestos defendants: Ford Motor Company, Pneumo Abex, and Honeywell International.
NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE. Peter J. Neeson, Chair of the Environmental Law and Toxic Torts Sections, has been elected Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the National Judicial College, beginning in June 2014.
Buchholz honored for service on Disciplinary Board of Supreme Ct. of Pennsylvania; McCarthy elected to Board of Directors of West Chester Food Bank; Neeson selected as top environmental lawyer by Martindale-Hubbell; Dorfzaun presents at NBI seminar on asbestos issues and litigation tactics; Nalencz addresses Judicial Fellows of First Judicial District of PA; Marc Sherman sworn in as NY pro bono arbitrator; Mapes speaks at Delaware Valley Environmental American Inn of Court program on hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
In February 2008, masonry restoration contractor Kevin Waggle began underpinning the basement party wall of a home in historic Old City Philadelphia as part of a basement renovation project. Underpinning is a process of digging and filling pockets underneath the brick wall of the home and filling them with concrete after lowering the floor to provide structural support for the wall.
PENNSYLVANIA: MARITIME / ASBESTOS - A Ship Is Not a "Product". by Carl D. Buchholz, III. In a case of first impression, Judge Eduardo Robreno, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled in Mack v. General Electric Company, et al. (E.D.Pa 2012) that a Navy ship is not a “product” for purposes of a strict product liability claim and, further, that maritime law recognizes a “sophisticated user” defense to a negligent failure to warn claim, but not “sophisticated purchaser” defense.
PENNSYLVANIA: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT. by John C. McMeekin II and Meredith A. Mack. Following a recent hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Joel H. Slomsky, John C. McMeekin II and Meredith Mack received a favorable judgment in a trademark infringement case on behalf of their clients, Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc., in the amount of $947,194.
PENNSYLVANIA: "DANGER INVITES RESCUE". by Gary N. Stewart and Michael T. Traxler. It could not have been stated better: “[D]anger invites rescue.” (New York Court of Appeals Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s language in Wagner v. International R. Co., 232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437 (1921)). In Pennsylvania and most other jurisdictions, a rescuer injured in the course and scope of preventing death or bodily injury to another is given favored status under the law and may recover against the person or entity that caused the need for the rescue.
PITTSBURGH PARTNER. Charles A. Buechel, Jr. has joined the Firm as a partner in our Pittsburgh office. Charlie focuses his practice in the areas of insurance coverage, medical professional liability, construction, casualty and premises liability, product liability, maritime, and environmental torts. He has more than 30 years of courtroom experience.
PENNSYLVANIA: ACCESS TO SOCIAL NETWORK INFORMATION. NOTIFICATION: DEFENDANT HAS SENT YOU A “FRIEND” REQUEST. By: David J. Samlin. With the explosion in the popularity and use of social networking sites, it is becoming more and more likely that information relevant to a personal injury suit may be posted by plaintiff on these sites.
PENNSYLVANIA: GENERAL CASUALTY. Contractor Not Responsible. By: Catherine N. Walto. Plaintiff, Gail Holmes, filed suit for personal injuries she sustained after allegedly slipping and falling in her employer's parking lot as she was exiting her car on her way into work.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: American College of Trial Lawyers. Fred B. Buck has become a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, one of the premier legal associations in America. His induction took place before approximately 800 attendees at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the College in LaQuinta, California.
PENNSYLVANIA: PREMISES LIABILITY. DEFENSE VERDICT. By: Daniel J. Rucket. Plaintiff was a 59-year-old wheelchair-bound paraplegic. His legs were not functional, but he claimed to have full feeling in his buttocks and legs. He entered Bowling Green Brandywine, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, on February 6, 2006 for alcohol withdrawal and rehabilitation. Plaintiff alleged in his Complaint that he was placed in a shower on a shower chair by a Bowling Green nurse, and the water was turned on and left running.
Pennsylvania: 1% Rule Dead! By: Gary N. Stewart. On June 28, 2011, Governor Tom Corbett signed tort reform legislation in Pennsylvania, limiting liability for negligence of defendants in certain civil court cases, such as trucking/motor vehicle actions.
2011 SUPER LAWYERS - Rawle & Henderson LLP is proud to announce that 15 attorneys were named 2011 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics.
PENNSYLVANIA - PREMISES LIABILITY - By: Daniel J. Rucket. On January 5, 2007, plaintiff was walking home from making a purchase at a local convenience store. As she walked on the sidewalk, less than one block from her home, she saw a puddle covering a portion of the sidewalk.
PHILADELPHIA - JUDICIAL HELLHOLE - By: Nigel A. Greene. The ninth annual survey conducted by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) ranked Philadelphia first on its list of "judicial hellholes." The ATRA released the list online in December 2010. The full list can be found at www.judicialhellholes.org.
PENNSYLVANIA - PREMISES LIABILITY - Contractor Not Responsible - By: John H. McCarthy and Suzanne Curran Murphy. On January 30, 2009 at approximately 12:00 pm, plaintiff, Nancy McNeely, was picking up her children in the parking lot of St. Albert the Great School in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania. There had been a snowfall two days earlier.
2011 NEW PARTNERS - Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce Scott F. Griffith and Valerie Kellner have been elected partners in 2011.
2010 Rising Stars - Rawle & Henderson LLP is proud to announce that two of its attorneys were named 2010 Pennsylvania Rising Stars by Law & Politics and the publishers of Philadelphia Magazine.
2010 SUPER LAWYERS - Rawle & Henderson LLP is proud to announce the attorneys from our firm who have been named 2010 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics and the publishers of Philadelphia Magazine.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS - DISCIPLINARY BOARD - Carl D. Buchholz, III, Chair of the Firm's Appellate and Maritime sections, has been appointed Chair of the Disciplinary Board of Pennsylvania by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Maritime - Defense Vertict - By: Carl D. Buchholz, III, After a four day jury trial in New Jersey federal court involving a lawsuit filed by longshoreman Raymond Evans and his wife against the owners of the LOMBOK STRAIT for injuries Evans allegedly sustained while loading containers aboard the LOMBOK STRAIT, Carl D. Buchholz, III obtained a defense verdict in favor of the shipowner.
2010 NEW PARTNERS - Rawle & Henderson LLP is pleased to announce that Claudio J. DiPaolo and Michael G. Sabo have been elected partners in 2010.
PRODUCT LIABILITY: DEFENSE VERDICT. By: John J. Snyder and Tara Gill Nalencz. John J. Snyder and Tara Gill Nalencz, recently obtained a defense verdict in an eleven day product liability trial before the Honorable Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.


It’s extremely important to understand that many of the terms you’re likely to hear in early intervention come from our nation’s law authorizing this program for infants and toddlers with disabilities, Part C of IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). You’ll find many, many references to this law on the CPIR’s website and in its publications, because IDEA guides how early intervention (Part C) and special education and related services (Part B) are provided to children with disabilities in the United States, birth to age 21.
States develop their own policies and procedures based on what IDEA requires. States are allowed to go beyond what IDEA requires–and frequently do, because the law leaves a great many things to State and local discretion. However, States are not permitted to have policies or procedures that are not consistent with IDEA’s provisions.
This being the case, the starting point of early intervention terms and what they mean is always how Part C of IDEA defines the terms (most of which are provided through this page and elsewhere on this site). Your State’s definition of a term is then important to consider, because it will influence how the term is being used in your area, especially if the State definition isn’t exactly the same as IDEA’s.
Additional provisions of import | The following provisions are also important with respect to parental consent.
§303.420 Parental consent and ability to decline services.
(5) Disclosure of personally identifiable information consistent with §303.414.
(2) Understands that the child will not be able to receive the evaluation, assessment, or early intervention service unless consent is given.
(c) The lead agency may not use the due process hearing procedures under this part or Part B of the Act to challenge a parent’s refusal to provide any consent that is required under paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) May decline a service after first accepting it, without jeopardizing other early intervention services under this part.
Developmental delay, when used with respect to a child residing in a State, has the meaning given that term by the State under §303.111.
§303.111 State definition of developmental delay.
(b) Specify the level of developmental delay in functioning or other comparable criteria that constitute a developmental delay in one or more of the developmental areas identified in §303.21(a)(1).
(9) Are provided in conformity with an IFSP adopted in accordance with section 636 of the Act and §303.20.
(i) Assistive technology device means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of an infant or toddler with a disability. The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, including a cochlear implant, or the optimization (e.g., mapping), maintenance, or replacement of that device.
(F) Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing education or rehabilitation services) or other individuals who provide services to, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of, infants and toddlers with disabilities.
(vi) Determination of the child’s individual amplification, including selecting, fitting, and dispensing appropriate listening and vibrotactile devices, and evaluating the effectiveness of those devices.
(3) Family training, counseling, and home visits means services provided, as appropriate, by social workers, psychologists, and other qualified personnel to assist the family of an infant or toddler with a disability in understanding the special needs of the child and enhancing the child’s development.
(4) Health services has the meaning given the term in §303.16.
(5) Medical services means services provided by a licensed physician for diagnostic or evaluation purposes to determine a child’s developmental status and need for early intervention services.
(iii) The administration of medications, treatments, and regimens prescribed by a licensed physician.
(iii) Making referrals to appropriate community resources to carry out nutrition goals.
(iii) Prevention or minimization of the impact of initial or future impairment, delay in development, or loss of functional ability.
(iii) Providing individual and group services or treatment to prevent, alleviate, or compensate for, movement dysfunction and related functional problems.
(iv) Planning and managing a program of psychological services, including psychological counseling for children and parents, family counseling, consultation on child development, parent training, and education programs.
(11) Service coordination services has the meaning given the term in §303.34.
(12) Sign language and cued language services include teaching sign language, cued language, and auditory/oral language, providing oral transliteration services (such as amplification), and providing sign and cued language interpretation.
(v) Identifying, mobilizing, and coordinating community resources and services to enable the infant or toddler with a disability and the family to receive maximum benefit from early intervention services.
(iv) Working with the infant or toddler with a disability to enhance the child’s development.
(iii) Provision of services for the habilitation, rehabilitation, or prevention of communication or language disorders and delays in development of communication skills.
(16) Transportation and related costs include the cost of travel and other costs that are necessary to enable an infant or toddler with a disability and the child’s family to receive early intervention services.
(iii) Communication skills training, orientation and mobility training for all environments, visual training, and additional training necessary to activate visual motor abilities.
(5) Orientation and mobility specialists.
(6) Pediatricians and other physicians for diagnostic and evaluation purposes.
(11) Special educators, including teachers of children with hearing impairments (including deafness) and teachers of children with visual impairments (including blindness).
(12) Speech and language pathologists.
(13) Vision specialists, including ophthalmologists and optometrists.
(d) Other services. The services and personnel identified and defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section do not comprise exhaustive lists of the types of services that may constitute early intervention services or the types of qualified personnel that may provide early intervention services. Nothing in this section prohibits the identification in the IFSP of another type of service as an early intervention service provided that the service meets the criteria identified in paragraph (a) of this section or of another type of personnel that may provide early intervention services in accordance with this part, provided such personnel meet the requirements in §303.31.
Definition of health services | You’ve reached the end of the definition of early intervention services in the Part C regulations. Now, here are the additional regulations that define “health services” (at §303.16), which were mentioned in the above definition.
(a) Health services mean services necessary to enable an otherwise eligible child to benefit from the other early intervention services under this part during the time that the child is eligible to receive early intervention services.
(2) Consultation by physicians with other service providers concerning the special health care needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities that will need to be addressed in the course of providing other early intervention services.
(iii) Related to the implementation, optimization (e.g., mapping), maintenance, or replacement of a medical device that is surgically implanted, including a cochlear implant.
(A) Nothing in this part limits the right of an infant or toddler with a disability with a surgically implanted device (e.g., cochlear implant) to receive the early intervention services that are identified in the child’s IFSP as being needed to meet the child’s developmental outcomes.
(3) Medical-health services (such as immunizations and regular “well-baby” care) that are routinely recommended for all children.
§303.21 Infant or toddler with a disability.
(ii) Physical development, including vision and hearing.
(iv) Social or emotional development.
(ii) Includes conditions such as chromosomal abnormalities; genetic or congenital disorders; sensory impairments; inborn errors of metabolism; disorders reflecting disturbance of the development of the nervous system; congenital infections; severe attachment disorders; and disorders secondary to exposure to toxic substances, including fetal alcohol syndrome.
(b) Infant or toddler with a disability may include, at a State’s discretion, an at-risk infant or toddler (as defined in §303.5).
(2) A written notification to parents of a child with a disability who is eligible for services under section 619 of the Act and who previously received services under this part of their rights and responsibilities in determining whether their child will continue to receive services under this part or participate in preschool programs under section 619 of the Act.
(b) The IFSP Team in §303.340 must include the involvement of the parent and two or more individuals from separate disciplines or professions and one of these individuals must be the service coordinator (consistent with §303.343(a)(1)(iv)).
Here’s another short-ish but important definition from the Part C regulations.
(2) For evaluations and assessments conducted pursuant to §303.321(a)(5) and (a)(6), the language normally used by the child, if determined developmentally appropriate for the child by qualified personnel conducting the evaluation or assessment.
(b) Native language, when used with respect to an individual who is deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, or for an individual with no written language, means the mode of communication that is normally used by the individual (such as sign language, braille, or oral communication).
Early intervention services are to be provided in natural environments to the maximum extent appropriate for the child and for the service being provided. Here’s Part C’s definition of the term.
And what might the provisions of §303.126 have to say?
The purpose of prior written notice is to inform the parents fully of a proposed (or refused) activity or action on the part of the early intervention system.
§303.421 Prior written notice and procedural safeguards notice.
(a) General. Prior written notice must be provided to parents a reasonable time before the lead agency or an EIS provider proposes, or refuses, to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or placement of their infant or toddler, or the provision of early intervention services to the infant or toddler with a disability and that infant’s or toddler’s family.
(3) All procedural safeguards that are available under this subpart, including a description of mediation in §303.431, how to file a State complaint in §§303.432 through 303.434 and a due process complaint in the provisions adopted under §303.430(d), and any timelines under those procedures.
(ii) Provided in the native language, as defined in §303.25, of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.
(iii) There is written evidence that the requirements of this paragraph have been met.
And last but not least, here’s how the Part C regulations define the term service coordination services, which is referenced in the definition of early intervention services above.
§303.34 Service coordination services (case management).
(a) General. (1) As used in this part, service coordination services mean services provided by a service coordinator to assist and enable an infant or toddler with a disability and the child’s family to receive the services and rights, including procedural safeguards, required under this part.
(ii) Serving as the single point of contact for carrying out the activities described in paragraphs (a)(3) and (b) of this section.
(ii) Coordinating the other services identified in the IFSP under §303.344(e) that are needed by, or are being provided to, the infant or toddler with a disability and that child’s family.
(10) Facilitating the development of a transition plan to preschool, school, or, if appropriate, to other services.
(c) Use of the term service coordination or service coordination services. The lead agency’s or an EIS provider’s use of the term service coordination or service coordination services does not preclude characterization of the services as case management or any other service that is covered by another payor of last resort (including Title XIX of the Social Security Act—Medicaid), for purposes of claims in compliance with the requirements of §§303.501 through 303.521 (Payor of last resort provisions).


§ 939-1 Written evaluation of feasibility required.
§ 939-2 Incorporation of energy-saving measures into bid specifications.
§ 939-6 Certified ranking required for appropriations.
§ 939-8 Council of Environmental Quality review.
§ 939-9 Rules and regulations.
Air-conditioning systems — See Ch. 12.
Purchasing and contracts — See Chs. 189 and 893.
Building construction — See Ch. 344.
Carbon dioxide emissions — See Ch. 357.
Environmental protection — See Chs. 446 and 943.
Environmental quality review — See Ch. 450.
The County Department of Public Works is hereby authorized, empowered and directed, pursuant to § C8-2W of the Suffolk County Charter, to prepare a written evaluation of the economic and physical feasibility of installing or utilizing energy conservation or energy-saving measures prior to the commencement of the construction of any County-owned or County-funded facilities on or after the effective date of this article.
Any such measures determined to be economically and physically feasible by the County Department of Public Works shall be incorporated into and made a part of bid specifications for such construction project.
Planning of new construction or renovation "built to suit" for long-term lease by the County of Suffolk occurring on or after the effective date of this article.
The project checklist, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A, shall be followed by the County Department of Public Works in implementing the provisions of § 939-3 of this article.
Editor's Note: Exhibit A is on file in the County offices.
Any capital project meeting the criteria set forth in § 939-3 shall be ranked in accordance with the certified silver, gold and platinum ranking system set forth in Exhibit A, separate and apart from the ranking system contained in Resolution No. 571-1998, as amended, which established a formalized priority ranking system for capital projects.
No appropriations for construction may be made for a capital project covered by this article unless it receives a "certified" ranking under the project checklist.
Such certification is accepted and compliance with LEED is waived by a duly enacted resolution of the County of Suffolk.
The Suffolk County Council of Environment Quality (CEQ) shall consider the current LEED Building Rating System in its review of County action under SEQRA and Chapter 450, Environmental Quality Review, of the Suffolk County Code.
The County Department of Public Works is hereby further authorized, empowered, and directed, pursuant to § C8-2W of the Suffolk County Charter, to promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate for the implementation and enforcement of any provisions of this article.


text:
You searched for: Product Keywords apples Remove constraint Product Keywords: apples Defendants Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. Remove constraint Defendants: Pacific Fruit & Produce Co.
1. 20602. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 840 Boxes of Apples. Product released under bond.
2. 20687. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 156 Boxes of Apples. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
3. 21027. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 714 Boxes of Apples. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
4. 21041. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 12 Boxes and 25 Boxes of Apples. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
5. 21153. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 272 Boxes of Apples. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
6. 21387. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $50.
7. 23154. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co. Plea of guilty. Fine, $10.
8. 18918. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 660 Baskets of Apples. Consent decree of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released under bond.
9. 19419. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 175 Boxes of Apples. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.
10. 19561. Adulteration of apples. U. S. v. 12 Boxes of Apples. Default decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and destruction.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 31 in Alice v. CLS Bank, the much anticipated case concerning whether inventions executed on computers are patent-eligible subject matter under the “abstract idea” test.
In Alice, the petitioner Alice is a patent owner whose invention was found not patent-eligible. It sought to convince the Supreme Court that its process and system claims to intermediated settlements in trading situations are patent-eligible. The invention faced an uphill battle at the Supreme Court.
The petitioner’s argument in Alice began with counsel Carter Phillips asserting that the only issue to be resolved was whether the existing standard against the patenting of natural phenomena, laws of nature and abstract ideas applied. Justice Breyer, author of Mayo v. Prometheus and author of a concurring opinion in Bilski v. Kappos, immediately interjected that intermediate settlement was no different than the hedging found ineligible for patenting in Bilski. Interestingly, Mr. Phillips conceded that if the patent in suit claimed intermediated settlements, it would not have a distinction from Bilski. But he also conceded that with the idea of the patent in hand, a second-year college class in engineering could program the idea over the weekend.
Justice Breyer proceeded to compare the idea to King Tut hiring a man with an abacus to keep track of King Tut giving away chits of gold. Upon seeing on his abacus that a limit had been reached, the “abacist” would say “stop.” He then compared the invention to the same thing with a grain elevator, reservoir of water and his checkbook — the checkbook watched by his mother. To him, the invention was simply maintaining solvency, or meant to cover the command, “computer, stop.” Justice Sotomayor added that she also saw only a function of reconciling accounts, making sure they were paid on time.
Justice Breyer pointed out that 42 briefs had been filed in the case by the parties and amici. He stated they were helpful “up to the point where [the Court] has to make a decision.” The problem, he stated, is that if processes implemented on the computer are universally eligible for patent, then competition will not be on the basis of price, service and better production methods, but on who has the best patent lawyer. But on the other hand, if computer-implemented inventions are never patent-eligible, real inventions with computers are ruled out. The issue is “how to go between Scylla and Charybdis,” roughly, between a rock and a hard place.
Asked to step out of his client representation and give the Court advice, an odd request, Mr. Phillips advocated that in providing a covered business method procedure in the America Invents Act, Congress did not say “no” to business method patents. It instead intended to take the resolution of eligibility out of the courts and put it in the Patent Office. His advice, then, was that the Court liberally interpret 35 U.S.C. § 101, and leave the culling of appropriate business method patents to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. However, Justice Ginsburg pointed out that four justices in Bilski did not liberally interpret the legislative history of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as he suggested. Diverting the argument, Justice Scalia stated that the Court had not concluded in its prior decisions that “you can’t take an abstract idea and then say here is how you implement it,” meaning, apparently, that he might find eligibility for computer implementations that required “how to” explanations.
Mayo, Mr. Perry asserted, stated: “Simply implementing a fundamental principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, is not a patentable application of that principle.” Asked why if the test was simple, the Federal Circuit struggled, Mr. Perry responded that the Federal Circuit includes a significant element that disagrees with Mayo and has been resistant to applying it. To retreat from the unanimous decision of Mayo, he asserted, “would reward intransigence, difficulty, refusal to adhere to what are clear precedents.” Concluding, Mr. Perry asserted the problem was small, with only 57 district court decisions on 35 U.S.C. § 101 since Bilski and only 12 Federal Circuit decisions on computer implementation.
Notable is that the patent owner, through Mr. Phillips, admitted there was no invention in the case in the software by which the intermediated settlements of the case was implemented. The computer implementation, he conceded, was the stuff of college class members programming over a weekend, or even weekend programming at a coffee shop. He combined this with agreeing that if the patent claimed intermediated settlement, the case result was to be just as in Bilski. This argument likely may doom the specific patent at issue. The Court will likely take the easy path, and affirm that the invention of the patent is not patent eligible.
The transcript of the oral argument in Alice v. CLS Bank can be found here.


text:
The present disclosure relates to an anchor assembly. The anchor assembly includes an anchor defining a cavity and an opening to the cavity; and a headless insertion member configured for arrangement within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a body having a threaded proximal portion, a non-threaded distal portion, and a cannulation extending a partial length of the insertion member. Other anchor assemblies, anchors, and delivery devices are also disclosed.
This application claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 61/259,737, filed Nov. 10, 2009, U.S. Patent Application No. 61/259,739, filed Nov. 10, 2009, U.S. Patent Application No. 61/290,695, filed Dec. 29, 2009, U.S. Patent Application No. 61/312,481, filed Mar. 10, 2010, and U.S. Patent Application No. 61/334,221, filed May 13, 2010, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
The present disclosure relates to tissue repair devices, and more specifically, to anchors, anchor assemblies, and delivery devices for use in securing tissue to bone.
Arthroscopic procedures often require soft tissue to be reattached to bone. To achieve this, anchors are placed in the bone and sutures attached to the anchor are passed through the tissue to securely retain the tissue in place. A procedure and components for use in such procedure, that securely attaches tissue to bone, is needed. Such procedure must be able to be done in a quick and efficient manner with a minimum of recovery time for the patient.
In an aspect, the present disclosure relates to an anchor assembly. The anchor assembly includes an anchor defining a cavity and an opening to the cavity; and a headless insertion member configured for arrangement within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a body having a threaded proximal portion, a non-threaded distal portion, and a cannulation extending a partial length of the insertion member. In an embodiment, the cannulation is triangular shaped. In another embodiment, the anchor cavity includes a threaded proximal portion and a non-threaded distal portion. In yet another embodiment, the distal portion of the insertion member includes two segments and a tapered portion located between the segments.
In another aspect, the present disclosure relates to an anchor assembly. The anchor assembly includes an anchor defining a cavity and an opening to the cavity and a headless insertion member configured for arrangement within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a fully threaded body and a cannulation extending a partial length of the insertion member.
In yet another aspect, the present disclosure relates to a surgical device. The surgical device includes a shaft including an outer member and an inner member slidably received within the outer member, the outer member including an inner surface having threads and the inner member including an outer surface having threads; a handle coupled to the shaft; and a knob coupled to the inner member, wherein the threads of the inner member and the threads of the outer member are engaged to allow for coupling of the inner member and the outer member and movement of the outer member relative to the inner member upon rotation of the knob. In an embodiment, the inner member is triangular-shaped. In another embodiment, the inner member includes a depth stop. In yet another embodiment, the outer member includes a tip extending from an end of the outer member. In a further embodiment, the tip is square-shaped.
In a further aspect, the present disclosure relates to an anchor assembly. The anchor assembly including an anchor defining a cavity and an opening to the cavity, the cavity including a non-threaded proximal portion and a threaded distal portion; and a headless insertion member configured for arrangement within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a body and a cannulation extending a partial length of the insertion member, the body including a threaded proximal portion and a non-threaded distal portion. In an embodiment, the proximal portion is square-shaped.
In yet a further aspect, the present disclosure relates to an anchor. The anchor includes a body defining a cavity and an opening to the cavity, the body including an outer surface and channels extending from the outer surface to the cavity. In an embodiment, the body includes barbs, the channels located between the barbs. In another embodiment, the outer surface includes slots, the slots intersecting the barbs.
In an aspect, the present disclosure relates to an anchor assembly. The anchor assembly including an anchor defining a cavity and an opening to the cavity, the anchor including a body having an outer surface and barbs extending from the body and alternating in direction along the length of the body; and a headless insertion member configured for arrangement within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a body and a cannulation extending a partial length of the insertion member.
In another aspect, the present disclosure relates to an anchor assembly. The anchor assembly includes an anchor including an outer body and an inner body coupled to the outer body, the outer body including a first feature and a second feature, the inner body including a first feature and a second feature, the first feature of the inner body and the first feature of the outer body engaged to allow for non-rotation of the inner body relative to the outer body and the second feature of the inner body and the second feature of the outer body engaged to allow for non-movement of the inner body relative to the outer body in an axial direction; and a headless insertion member configured for arrangement within the inner body, the insertion member including a body and a cannulation extending a partial length of the insertion member.
Further areas of applicability of the present disclosure will become apparent from the detailed description provided hereinafter. It should be understood that the detailed description and specific examples, while indicating the preferred embodiment of the disclosure, are intended for purposes of illustration only and are not intended to limit the scope of the disclosure.
FIG. 1 shows a side elevational view of a first embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 2A shows a side elevational view of the anchor of the anchor assembly of FIG. 1.
FIG. 2B shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor of FIG. 2A.
FIG. 3A shows a side elevational view of the insertion member of the anchor assembly of FIG. 1.
FIG. 3B shows a cross-sectional view of the insertion member of FIG. 3A.
FIG. 4 shows an isometric view of the delivery device of the present disclosure.
FIG. 5 shows a cross-sectional view of the distal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 4 and the anchor assembly of FIG. 1 prior to fixation of suture.
FIG. 6 shows a cross-sectional view of the distal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 4 and the anchor assembly of FIG. 1 after fixation of suture.
FIG. 7 shows a cross-sectional view of the proximal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 4.
FIG. 8 shows a side elevational view of a second embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 9 shows a side elevational view of the anchor of the anchor assembly of FIG. 8.
FIG. 10 shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor of FIG. 9.
FIG. 11 shows a side elevational view of the insertion member of the anchor assembly FIG. 8.
FIG. 12 shows a cross-sectional view of the insertion member of FIG. 11.
FIG. 13 shows an isometric view of the delivery device for use with the anchor assembly of FIG. 8.
FIG. 14 shows a cross-sectional view of the delivery device and anchor assembly of FIG. 13 prior to use of the device and assembly during surgery.
FIG. 14A shows an exploded view of the distal end of the delivery device and the anchor assembly of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14B shows an exploded view of the proximal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 14.
FIG. 15 shows a cross-sectional view of the delivery device and anchor assembly of FIG. 13 after use of the device and assembly during surgery.
FIG. 15A shows an exploded view of the distal end of the delivery device and the anchor assembly of FIG. 15.
FIG. 15B shows an exploded view of the proximal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 14.
FIGS. 16-27 show a method of tissue repair via use of the delivery device and anchor assembly of FIGS. 1 and 13.
FIG. 28 shows a side elevational view of a third embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 29 shows a side elevational view of the anchor of the anchor assembly of FIG. 28.
FIG. 30 shows a side view of the anchor of FIG. 29.
FIG. 31 shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor of FIG. 29.
FIG. 32 shows a side elevational view of the insertion member of the anchor assembly of FIG. 28.
FIG. 33 shows a cross-sectional view of the insertion member of FIG. 32.
FIG. 34 shows an isometric view of the delivery device for use with the anchor assembly of FIG. 28.
FIG. 34A shows an exploded view of the distal end of the delivery device of FIG. 34.
FIG. 35 shows an isometric view of the delivery device and anchor assembly of FIGS. 28 and 34.
FIG. 36 shows a cross-sectional view of the delivery device and anchor assembly of FIG. 35 prior to use of the device and assembly during surgery.
FIG. 36A shows an exploded view of the proximal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 36.
FIG. 37 shows a cross-sectional view of the delivery device and anchor assembly of FIG. 35 after to use of the device and assembly during surgery.
FIG. 37A shows an exploded view of the proximal ends of the outer and inner members of the delivery device of FIG. 37.
FIG. 37B shows an exploded view of the anchor assembly of FIG. 37.
FIG. 38 shows an isometric view of a first embodiment of a fenestrated suture anchor of the present disclosure.
FIG. 39 shows a side view of the anchor of FIG. 38.
FIG. 40 shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor of FIG. 39.
FIG. 41 shows a side elevational view of a second embodiment of a fenestrated suture anchor of the present disclosure.
FIG. 42 shows a cross sectional view of the anchor of FIG. 41.
FIG. 43 shows a side elevational view of a third embodiment of a fenestrated suture anchor of the present disclosure.
FIG. 44 shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor of FIG. 43.
FIG. 45 shows a side view of a fourth embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 46 shows a side elevational view of the anchor assembly of FIG. 45.
FIG. 47 shows a side view of a fifth embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 48 shows a side elevational view of the anchor assembly of FIG. 47.
FIG. 49 shows a side view of a sixth embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 50 shows a side elevational view of the anchor assembly of FIG. 49.
FIG. 51 shows a side view of a seventh embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 52 shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor assembly of FIG. 51.
FIG. 53 shows a side view of an eighth embodiment of the anchor assembly of the present disclosure.
FIG. 54 shows a cross-sectional view of the anchor assembly of FIG. 53.
The following description of the preferred embodiment(s) is merely exemplary in nature and is in no way intended to limit the disclosure, its application, or uses.
FIGS. 1, 2A-2B, and 3A-3B show a first embodiment of the anchor assembly 10 of the present disclosure and its components. The assembly 10 includes the anchor 20 and the insertion member 30. The anchor 20 includes a proximal portion 21, a distal portion 22, and an inner cavity 23. An opening 24 to the cavity 23 is located at the proximal portion 21 of the anchor 20. The anchor 20 also includes a transverse hole 25 extending through the anchor 20. The through hole 25 is for housing of a flexible member, such as suture. Openings 25 a,b are located at each end of the through hole 25. The outer surface 27 of the proximal portion 21 also includes barbs 28 for substantially reducing the possibility of removal of the anchor 20 when inserted into bone. The outer surface 27 also includes at least two slots 29 extending from the openings 25 a,b of the through hole 25. The slots 29 intersect the barbs 28 and are configured for housing of the suture after positioning of the anchor 20 in bone. As shown in FIG. 2B, the cavity 23 extends into and beyond the through hole 25 and includes a threaded proximal portion 23 a and a non-threaded distal portion 23 b. Also shown in FIG. 2B are a pair of depressions 26, each of which is located adjacent to the cavity 23. The depressions 26 are for housing of a delivery device, as will be further explained later.
The insertion member 30 includes a headless body 31 having a threaded proximal portion 31 a and a non-threaded distal portion 31 b. The distal portion 31 b includes two segments 31 b′, 31 b″ and a tapered portion 31 c located between the segments 31 b′, 31 b″. Segment 31 b″ has a flat end portion 31 d. As shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B, the member 30 includes a triangular-shaped cannulation 31 c that extends a partial length of the member 30. The threads 31 a′ are configured for engagement with the threads 23 c of the cavity 23 when the insertion member 30 is arranged within the cavity 23, as will be further explained below.
FIGS. 4-7 show the delivery device 40 of the present disclosure. The device 40 includes a shaft 41, a handle 42 coupled to the shaft 41, and a knob 43 coupled to the handle 42. The shaft 41 includes an outer member 41 a and an inner member 41 b slidably disposed within and coupled to the outer member 41 a. The inner member 41 b includes a distal end 41 b′ configured for disposal within the cannulation 31 e of the insertion member 30 and a proximal end 41 b″ coupled to the knob 43. The end 41 b′ is of a diameter such that it engages the wall 31 e′ of the cannulation 31 e, thereby allowing movement of the member 30 when the knob 43 is rotated, as will be further described below. The outer member 41 a includes prongs 41 c located at a distal end 41 a′ of the outer member 41 a and a proximal end 41 a″ coupled to the handle 42.
Prior to use, suture 44 is disposed within the through hole 25 and ends 44 a,44 b of the suture 44 are fixed to suture holders 45 located on handle 42. The suture 44 helps to keep anchor 20 coupled to the shaft 41. The delivery device 40 and its components, especially the handle 42 and knob 43, is similar to the delivery device shown and described in US Patent Application Publication 20100016869, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. The ends 44 a,44 b of the suture 44 are also housed within channels 46 that extend along the shaft 41. A suture threader 11000 is also releasably coupled to the shaft 41. Threader 11000 includes a clip 11000 a and a loop of suture 11000 b coupled to the clip 11000 a. Suture loop 11000 b is disposed within the through hole 25 and placed around the clip 11000 a.
As shown in FIG. 5, the prongs 41 c are disposed within the depressions 26. Once the anchor assembly 10 is disposed within bone, the prongs 41 e help to hold the anchor 20 stationary while the insertion member 30 is moved relative to the anchor 20 via rotation of the knob 43. As will be further described below, FIG. 5 shows the location of the insertion member 30 prior to fixation of suture within the cavity 23, while FIG. 6 shows the location of the insertion member 30 after fixation of suture within the cavity 23. The non-threaded distal portion 31 b is configured to be housed within the non-threaded distal portion 23 b of the anchor 20.
Additionally, as shown in FIG. 7, the proximal end 41 b″ of the inner member 41 b includes threads 41 d on an outer surface 41 e of the inner member 41 b and the proximal end 41 a″ of the outer member 41 a includes threads 41 f on an inner surface 41 g of the outer member 41 a. Threads 41 f engage threads 41 d to allow for coupling of the outer and inner members 41 a, 41 b and axial movement of the inner member 41 b relative to the outer member 41 a, via rotation of the knob 43. Axial movement of the inner member 41 b relative to the outer member 41 a allows for axial movement of the insertion member 30 to the two locations shown in FIGS. 5 and 6.
FIGS. 8-12 show a second embodiment of the anchor assembly 100 of the present disclosure and its components. The assembly 100 includes the anchor 200 and the insertion member 300. The anchor 200 includes a proximal portion 210, a distal portion 220, and an inner cavity 230. An opening 240 to the cavity 230 is located at the proximal portion 210 of the anchor 200. The anchor 200 also includes a transverse hole 250 extending through the anchor 200. The through hole 250 is for housing of a flexible member, such as suture. Openings 250 a,b are located at each end of the through hole 250. The outer surface 270 of the proximal portion 210 also includes barbs 280 for substantially reducing the possibility of removal of the anchor 200 when inserted into bone. The outer surface 270 also includes at least two slots 290 extending from the openings 250 a,b of the through hole 250. The slots 290 intersect the barbs 280 and are configured for housing of the suture after positioning of the anchor 200 in bone. As shown in FIG. 10, the cavity 230 extends into and beyond the through hole 250. Also shown in FIG. 10 are a pair of depressions 260, each of which is located adjacent to the cavity 230. The depressions 260 are for housing of a delivery device, as will be further explained later.
The insertion member 300 includes a body 310 having threads 310 a, a distal portion 310 b, and a proximal portion 310 c. As shown in FIGS. 8, 11, and 12, the member 300 includes a triangular-shaped cannulation 310 d that extends a partial length of the member 300. The threads 310 a are configured for engagement with the threads 230 c of the cavity 230 when the insertion member 300 is arranged within the cavity 230, as will be further explained below.
FIGS. 13-14, 14A-14B, 15, and 15A-15B show the delivery device 400 of the present disclosure for use with the anchor assembly 100 of FIG. 8. The device 400 includes a shaft 410, a handle 420 coupled to the shaft 410, and a knob 430 coupled to the handle 420. The shaft 410 includes an outer member 410 a and an inner member 410 b slidably disposed within and coupled to the outer member 410 a. The inner member 410 b includes a distal end 410 b′ configured for disposal within the cannulation 310 d of the insertion member 300 and a proximal end 410 b″ coupled to the knob 430. The end 410 b′ is of a diameter such that it engages the wall 310 d′ of the cannulation 310 d, thereby allowing movement of the member 30 when the knob 430 is rotated, as will be further described below. The outer member 410 a includes prongs 410 c located at a distal end 410 a′ of the outer member 410 a and a proximal end 410 a″ coupled to the handle 420.
Prior to use, suture 440 is disposed within the through hole 250 and ends 440 a,440 b of the suture 440 are fixed to suture holders 450 located on handle 420. The suture 440 helps to keep anchor 200 coupled to the shaft 410. The delivery device 400 and its components, especially the knob 430, is similar to the delivery device shown and described in the '869 publication. The ends 440 a,440 b of the suture 440 are also housed within channels 460 that extend along the shaft 410. A suture threader 12000 is also releasably coupled to the shaft 410. Threader 12000 includes a clip 12000 a and a loop of suture 12000 b coupled to the clip 12000 a. Suture loop 12000 b is disposed within the through hole 250 and placed around the clip 12000 a.
As shown in FIGS. 14A and 15A, the prongs 410 c are disposed within the depressions 260. Once the anchor assembly 100 is disposed within bone, the prongs 410 c help to hold the anchor 200 stationary while the insertion member 300 is moved relative to the anchor 200 via rotation of the knob 430. As will be further described below, FIG. 14A shows the location of the insertion member 300 prior to fixation of suture within the through hole 250, while FIG. 15A shows the location of the insertion member 300 after fixation of suture within the through hole 250.
Additionally, as shown in FIGS. 14B and 15B, the proximal end 410 b″ of the inner member 410 b includes threads 410 d on an outer surface 410 e of the inner member 410 b and the proximal end 410 a″ of the outer member 410 a includes threads 410 f on an inner surface 410 g of the outer member 410 a. Threads 410 f engage threads 410 d to allow for coupling of the outer and inner members 410 a, 410 b and axial movement of the inner member 410 b relative to the outer member 410 a. Axial movement of the inner member 410 b relative to the outer member 410 a allows for axial movement of the insertion member 300 to the two locations shown in FIGS. 14A and 15A. Member 410 b also includes a depth stop 410 b″ that engages an end 410 a″′ of member 410 a, as shown in FIG. 15B, once member 300 is located as shown in FIG. 15A. Interaction of the depth stop 410 b″′ with the end 410 a″′ ceases axial movement of the member 300 toward the through hole 250 and prevents the member 300 from being overly inserted into the cavity 230. The insertion member 300 is moved axially towards the through hole 250 to engage the flexible member and secure the flexible member within the cavity 230, which will be further described below.
FIGS. 16-27 show the anchor assembly 10,100 of the present disclosure in use during soft tissue repair, specifically to repair labrum tears in the shoulder. As shown in FIG. 16, the labrum 2000 has been torn away from the glenoid cavity 3000 and is in need of being re-attached. FIG. 16 shows a monofilament suture loop 4001 from a suture passer 4000 being inserted through the labrum 2000 via use of a first cannula 5000. A grasper 6000 from a second cannula 7000 grabs the loop 4001 and pulls it through the second cannula 7000. Once the loop 4001 is pulled through the second cannula 7000, one end 8001 of a suture 8000 is passed through the loop 4001. The one end 8001 of the suture 8000 is pulled through the labrum 2000 and first cannula 5000 via the loop 4001, while the other end 8002 is grasped and pulled through the first cannula 5000 to have both ends 8001,8002 exiting the cannula 5000, as shown in FIG. 17.
A hole 3001 is then made in the glenoid 3000 via the use of a drill guide 9000 and drill 10000, as shown in FIGS. 18 and 19. The ends 8001,8002 are placed through the suture threader loop 11000 b,12000 b and pulled through the through hole 25,250 of the anchor 20,200, as shown in FIGS. 20 and 21. The suture 44,440 is removed from the delivery device 40,400 prior to inserting the anchor assembly 10,100 into the hole 3001. After the anchor assembly 10,100 is inserted into the hole 3001, as shown in FIGS. 22 and 23, the suture ends 8001,8002 are tensioned and the ends 8001,8002 are locked by placing the ends 8001,8002 in the suture holder 45,450, as shown in FIG. 24, and the inner plug 30,300 is then rotated, via rotation of the knob 43,430 to fixate the suture 8000 in the cavity 23,230.
The suture ends 8001,8002 are cut, as shown in FIG. 26, and the delivery device 40,400 is removed. Additional anchor assemblies 10,100 may be inserted until the desired final repair is completed, as shown in FIG. 27. For clarity purposes, only end 8001, suture loop 12000 b, and anchor assembly 100 are shown in FIGS. 20-23. However, in practice, both ends 8001,8002 are used and suture loop 11000 b and anchor assembly 10 may be used rather than suture loop 12000 b and anchor assembly 100.
FIGS. 28-33 show an alternative embodiment of the anchor assembly 500 of the present disclosure and its components. The assembly 500 includes the anchor 600 and the insertion member 700. The anchor 600 includes a proximal portion 610, a distal portion 620, and an inner cavity 630. The inner cavity 630 will be further described below. An opening 640 to the cavity 630 is located at the proximal portion 610 of the anchor 600. The anchor 600 also includes a transverse hole 650 extending through the anchor 600. The through hole 650 is for housing of a flexible member, such as suture. Openings 650 a,b are located at each end of the through hole 650. The outer surface 670 of the proximal portion 610 also includes wings 680 for substantially reducing the possibility of removal of the anchor 600 when inserted into bone. The wings 680 are unlike barbs 28,280 in that wings 680 are longer, have more space between them, and extend further upward and outward then barbs 28,280. The outer surface 670 also includes at least two slots 690 extending from the openings 650 a,b of the through hole 650. The slots 690 intersect the wings 680 and are configured for housing of the suture after positioning of the anchor 600 in bone. As shown in FIG. 10, the cavity 630 extends into and beyond the through hole 650 and includes a non-threaded proximal portion 630 a and a threaded distal portion 630 b. The proximal portion 630 a is square-shaped to correspond with an end of the delivery device used to insert the anchor 600 into bone, as will be further described below. The proximal portion 630 a also has a larger diameter and is shorter than the distal portion 630 b.
The insertion member 700 includes a body 710 having a threaded proximal portion 710 a and a non-threaded distal portion 710 b. The proximal portion 710 a has a larger diameter than the distal portion 710 b. The member 700 includes a triangular-shaped cannulation 710 e that extends a partial length of the member 700. The threads 710 a′ are configured for engagement with the threads 630 c of the cavity 630 when the insertion member 700 is arranged within the cavity 630, as will be further explained below.
FIGS. 34, 34A, 35, 35, 36, 36A-36B, and 37A-37B show the delivery device 800 of the present disclosure. The device 800 includes a shaft 810, a handle 820 coupled to the shaft 810, and a knob 830 coupled to the handle 820. The shaft 810 includes an outer member 810 a and an inner member 810 b slidably disposed within and coupled to the outer member 810 a. The inner member 810 b includes a distal end 810 b′ configured for disposal within the cannulation 710 e of the insertion member 700 and a proximal end 810 b″ coupled to the knob 830. The end 810 b′ is of a diameter such that it engages the wall 710 e′ of the cannulation 710 e, thereby allowing movement of the member 700 when the knob 830 is rotated, as will be further described below. The outer member 810 a includes a square-shaped tip 810 c extending from a distal end 810 a′ of the outer member 810 a and a proximal end 810 a″ coupled to the handle 820.
The handle 820 includes suture holders 850, each suture holder 850 extending from a side of the handle 820. Additionally, as shown in FIG. 34, a flexible member 900, such as a suture, is housed within the through hole 650 with each end 900 a,900 b of the member 900 being coupled to a holder 850. The flexible member 850 helps to hold the anchor 600 on the device 800 prior to insertion of the anchor 600 into bone. The ends 900 a,900 b of the suture 900 are also housed within channels 860 that extend along the shaft 810. A suture threader 13000 is also releasably coupled to the shaft 81. Threader 13000 includes a clip 13000 a and a loop of suture 13000 b coupled to the clip 13000 a. Suture loop 13000 b is disposed within the through hole 650 and placed around the clip 13000 a. The delivery device 800 and its components, especially the knob 830, are similar to the delivery device shown and described in the '869 publication.
As shown in FIGS. 36 and 37, the tip 810 c is disposed within the proximal portion 630 a. Once the anchor assembly 500 is disposed within bone, the tip 810 c helps to hold the anchor 600 stationary while the insertion member 700 is moved relative to the anchor 600. Additionally, as shown in FIG. 14A, the proximal end 810 b″ of the inner member 810 b includes threads 810 d on an outer surface 810 e of the inner member 810 b and the proximal end 810 a″ of the outer member 810 a includes threads 810 f on an inner surface 810 g of the outer member 810 a. Threads 810 f engage threads 810 d to allow for coupling of the outer and inner members 810 a, 810 b and axial movement of the inner member 810 b relative to the outer member 810 a.
Axial movement of the inner member 810 b relative to the outer member 810 a allows for axial movement of the insertion member 700 to the two locations shown in FIGS. 36B and 37B. Member 810 b also includes a depth stop 810 b″′ that engages an end 810 a″′ of member 810 a, as shown in FIG. 37A, once member 700 is located as shown in FIG. 37B. Interaction of the depth stop 810 b″′ with the end 810 a″′ ceases axial movement of the member 700 toward the through hole 650 and prevents the member 700 from being overly inserted into the cavity 630. The insertion member 700 is moved axially towards the through hole 650 to engage the flexible member and secure the flexible member within the cavity 630, which will be further described below.
During tissue repair via use of the anchor assembly 500 and the driver 800, suture from a previously placed anchor is pulled through the through hole 650. The manner in which the suture is pulled through the through hole 650 may be the same as the manner described in the '106 and '180 patent applications. The anchor assembly 500 is subsequently inserted into bone, via use of the driver 800, in the manner shown in FIG. 36B. Axial advancement of the anchor assembly 500 into the bone may occur via tapping on the handle 820. After the soft tissue is situated on the bone and the suture is located through the soft tissue, in the manner described in the '106 and '180 patent applications, the insertion member 700 is moved axially towards the distal portion 630 b, via rotation of the knob 830 to engage the suture and secure the suture within the cavity 630, in the manner shown in FIG. 37B. For clarity purposes, only the anchor assembly 500 is shown in FIGS. 36B and 37B. However, a further description and showing of a method of tissue repair similar to the above-described method, is shown in the '106 and '180 published applications.
The components of the anchor assemblies 10,100,500 are made from a bioabsorbable polymer material via an injection molding process. However, other materials and processes may be used. In addition, the suture material is made from a bioabsorbable polymer material, but other material may be used. Furthermore, the outer surface 27, 270, 670 of the anchors 20,200,600 may include features other than barbs and wings 28,280,680 to reduce the possibility of removal of the anchor 20,200,600 and the barbs 28,280,680 may extend the entire length or a partial length of the anchor 20,200,600. Similarly, the body 31,310,710 of the insertion member 30,300,700 and the cavity 23,230,630 of the anchor 20,200,600 may include features other than threads to facilitate insertion and removal of the insertion member 30,300,700 and the threads 31 a′,310 a,710 a′ may extend the entire length or a partial length of the body 31,310,710 and cavity 23,230,630. Also, for the purposes of this disclosure, the through hole 25,250,650 may be located anywhere along the length of the anchor 20,200,600. Additionally, it is within the scope of this disclosure for the anchor 20,200,600 to have more or less than two slots 29,290,690.
Additionally, for the purposes of this disclosure, the outer member 41 a 410 a includes at least one prong 41 c,410 c and the anchor 20,200 includes at least one corresponding depression 26,260. Also, the cannulation 31 e,310 e of the insertion member 30,300 may extend an entire length of the insertion member 30,300 and may include a shape other than triangular.
The outer and inner members 41 a,41 b,410 a,410 b,810 a,810 b of the delivery device 40,400,800 include a stainless steel material, but may be made from any other metal or non-metal material that is bio-compatible and strong enough to withstand the forces that are placed on the members 41 a,41 b,410 a,410 b,810 a,810 b during surgery. The members 41 a,41 b,410 a,410 b 810 a,810 b may be machined, die drawn and subsequently machined, or made by any other method known to one of skill in the art. The outer and inner members 41 a, 41 b,410 a,410 b,810 a,810 b are coupled to the handle 42,420,820 and knob 43,430,830 respectively, via a press-fit procedure. However, other methods of coupling the handle 42,420,820 and knob 43,430,830 to the members 41 a,41 b,410 a,410 b,810 a,810 b are also within the scope of this disclosure. The handle 42,420,820 and knob 43,430,830 are of a non-metal material, but may be made from a metal material, and both are made via an injection molding process. However, other methods of making are also within the scope of this disclosure.
FIGS. 38-40 show a first embodiment of a fenestrated suture anchor 1000 of the present disclosure. The anchor 1000 includes a body 1001 having a proximal portion 1001 a and a distal portion 1001 b, a transverse through hole 1002 located between the distal and proximal portions 1001 b,1001 a, and a cavity 1003 extending a partial length of the body 1001. Wings 1004 exist along the body 1001 and outward from it. Similar to the wings 680, wings 1004 engage bone when the anchor 1000 is inserted into the bone, as will be further described below. The body 1001 also includes suture slots 1005 extending from openings 1002 a,1002 b of the hole 1002. Additionally, there are channels 1006 extending along the body 1001 on both sides of the slots 1005. The channels 1006 extending from an outer surface 1007 of the anchor 1000 to the cavity 1003, thereby allowing the anchor 1000 to be fenestrated. The channels 1006 allow for ingrowth of tissue, such as bone, and other nutrients after insertion of the anchor 1000 into bone, as will be further described later. A suture 1008 is housed within the hole 1002 having its ends 1008 a,1008 b housed within the slots 1005.
FIGS. 41-42 show a second embodiment of a fenestrated suture anchor 1100. The anchor 1100 includes a body 1101 having a proximal portion 1101 a and a distal portion 1101 b, a transverse through hole 1102 located between the distal and proximal portions 1101 b,1101 a, and a cavity 1103 extending a partial length of the body 1101. Barbs 1104 exist along the body 1101 and extend outward from it. Similar to the barbs 28,280, barbs 1104 engage bone when the anchor 1100 is inserted into the bone, as will be further described below. The body 1101 also includes channels 1106 extending along the body 1101. The channels 1106 extending from an outer surface 1107 of the anchor 1100 to the cavity 1103, thereby allowing the anchor 1100 to be fenestrated. The channels 1106 allow for ingrowth of tissue, such as bone, and other nutrients after insertion of the anchor 1100 into bone, as will be further described later. A suture 1108 is housed within the hole 1102 having its ends 1108 a,1108 b extend through openings 1102 a,1102 b and then back through the cavity 1103, as shown in FIG. 41.
FIGS. 43-44 show a first embodiment of a fenestrated suture anchor 1200 of the present disclosure. The anchor 1200 includes a body 1201 having a proximal portion 1201 a and a distal portion 1201 b, a transverse through hole 1202 located between the distal and proximal portions 1201 b,1201 a, and a cavity 1203 extending a partial length of the body 1201. Barbs 1204 exist along the body 1201 and extend outward from it. Similar to the barbs 28,280, barbs 1204 engage bone when the anchor 1200 is inserted into the bone, as will be further described below. The body 1201 also includes suture slots 1205 extending from openings 1202 a,1202 b of the hole 1202. Additionally, there are channels 1206 extending along the body 1201 interspaced with the slots 1205. The channels 1206 extend from an outer surface 1207 of the anchor 1200 to the cavity 1203, thereby allowing the anchor 1200 to be fenestrated. The channels 1206 allow for ingrowth of tissue, such as bone, and other nutrients after insertion of the anchor 1200 into bone, as will be further described later. A suture 1208 is housed within the hole 1202 having its ends 1208 a,1208 b housed within the slots 1205.
During repair of tissue via use of the suture anchors 1000,1100,1200, a delivery device having a handle and a shaft may be used to deliver the anchors into bone. An end of the shaft may be inserted into the cavity of the anchors and may have the same shape as cavity. The anchors 1000,1100,1200 are designed to be inserted into bone via axial motion. The torn tissue may then be placed on the bone, adjacent the anchors 1000,1100,1200. Subsequently, the suture may then be pulled through the tissue and tied to attach the tissue to the bone. A hole may be drilled in the bone prior to inserting the anchors 1000,1100,1200 into the bone.
FIGS. 45-50 show anchor assemblies 1300,1400,1500 similar to the anchor assemblies 10 of FIGS. 1, 8, and 28. The anchor assemblies 1300,1400,1500 are similar to the anchor assemblies 10,100,500 of FIGS. 1, 8, and 28 and the anchor assemblies shown and described in US Patent Application Publication No. 20090112270, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, and the '869 publication mentioned above. FIGS. 45-50 only show the anchors 1310,1410,1510 of the assemblies 1300,1400,1500. Although for the purposes of this disclosure, an insertion member, similar to the insertion members shown in the above mentioned figures and publications, would also be used with the anchors 1310,1410,1510. However, it is possible that the anchors 1310,1410,1510 could be used without insertion members, thereby being used in a similar manner to anchors 1000,1100,1200 during surgery.
FIGS. 45-46 show an anchor 1310 having barbs 1320 that extend outward from the body 1330 of the anchor 1310 and along its entire length on both sides. The barbs 1320 alternate in direction along the length of the anchor 1310. Similar to wings 680, extending the barbs 1320 outward from the body 1330 increases the overall surface area of the barbs 1320 and allows flexibility, which improves resistance to anchor pull-out, thereby reducing the possibility of removal of the anchor 1300 when inserted into bone. FIGS. 47-50 show anchors 1410,1510, which include barbs 1420,1520, similar in design and orientation, to barbs 1320 of anchor 1310. Unlike anchor 1310, the barbs 1420,1520 do not extend along the entire length of the anchor 1410,1510 and the distal end 1440,1540 of the anchor 1410,1510 is pointed thereby making it possible to insert the anchor 1410,1510 into bone without first creating a hole in the bone.
FIGS. 51 and 52 show an anchor 1610 that includes an outer body 1620 and an inner body 1630 disposed within the outer body 1620. The outer body 1620 includes an outer surface 1621 having wings 1622, similar to wings 680, and an inner cavity 1623. The distal end 1624 of the inner cavity 1623 includes a first feature 1625 and a second feature 1626, which will be more fully explained below in relation to the inner body 1630. Similar to the anchors described above, the outer body 1620 also includes a transverse hole 1627 and slots 1628. Similar to the anchors described above, the inner body 1630 includes a threaded inner cavity 1631, a through hole 1632, a proximal portion 1633, and a distal portion 1634. The inner body 1630 includes a first feature 1635 and a second feature 1636, both of which are located between the proximal and distal portions 1633,1634 and which will be more fully explained below in relation to the outer body 1620. The inner body 1630 is disposed within the outer body 1620 such that the outer body first feature 1625 is located within the inner body first feature 1635 and the outer body second feature 1626 is located within the inner body second feature 1636. The first features 1625,1635 are shaped so as to substantially reduce the possibility of the inner body 1630 rotating in relation to the outer body 1620 during repair, as will be more fully described below. The second features 1626,1636 are shaped so as to substantially reduce the possibility of the inner body 1630 from moving axially in relation to the outer body 1620 during insertion of the anchor 1610 into bone, as will be more fully described below. Additionally, the through holes 1627,1632 are aligned.
Similar to anchors 1310,1410,1510, anchor 1610 is part of an anchor assembly. However, for clarity purposes, the anchor 1610 is shown without an inner member. The distal portion 1634 of the inner body 1630 is pointed and the proximal portion 1633 does not extend the entire length of the inner cavity 1623, the purposes of which will be described later.
During insertion of the anchor 1610 into bone, a delivery device 1700, similar to delivery device 800, is used. For clarity purposes, only the outer member 1710 a of the shaft 1710 is shown in FIGS. 51 and 52. The outer member 1710 a is inserted into the anchor 1610 such that the square-shaped tip 1710 c is inserted into the inner cavity 1623. The tip 1710 c engages the inner body 1630 such that there is a clearance 1800 between the distal end 1710 a′ of the shaft 1710 and the anchor 1610. During insertion of the anchor 1610 into bone, the outer member 1710 a only engages the inner body 1630, thereby asserting all of the axial force of the outer member 1710 a on the inner body 1630, rather than the outer body 1620. The cooperation of the second features 1626,1636 substantially reduces the possibility of the inner body 1630 becoming unlocked from the outer body 1620 during axial insertion of the anchor 1610 into the bone. After insertion of the anchor 1610 into bone, a threaded inner member is rotationally inserted into the cavity 1631 via the use an inner member on the delivery device 1700, similar to the method of repair described above. During rotational insertion of the inner member into the cavity 1631, the cooperation of the first features 1625,1635 substantially reduces the possibility of rotation of the inner body 1630 in relation to the outer body 1620. The pointed distal portion 1634 of the inner body 1630 allows for insertion of the anchor 1610 into bone without having to create a hole in the bone prior to insertion.
For the purposes of this disclosure, the inner body 1630 is made from a metal material and the outer body 1620 is made from a polymer material. The outer and inner bodies 1620,1630 are coupled to each other via an interference fit or overmolding. However, other materials and manners of coupling may be used.
FIGS. 53 and 54 show an anchor 1900 similar to the anchor 600, albeit with a distal portion 1920 that is pointed enough to allow for insertion of the anchor 1900 into bone without first creating a hole in bone.
As various modifications could be made to the exemplary embodiments, as described above with reference to the corresponding illustrations, without departing from the scope of the disclosure, it is intended that all matter contained in the foregoing description and shown in the accompanying drawings shall be interpreted as illustrative rather than limiting. Thus, the breadth and scope of the present disclosure should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined only in accordance with the following claims appended hereto and their equivalents.
a rigid anchor defining a cavity, an opening to the cavity having a bottom surface, a through hole, a tapered distal end and a headless insertion member partially disposed within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a cannulation extending a substantial length of the insertion member and threads located along an outer surface of the insertion member from a proximal end to a distal end; wherein the anchor cavity includes threads extending from the cavity opening a substantial length of the cavity, and wherein the entire through hole is proximally separated from the bottom surface; and wherein the through hole intersects the cavity, defining first and second openings on opposing sides of the cavity, the insertion member threads and cavity threads configured to engage each other and move the insertion member so as to cover the first and second openings when in a suture fixation position; and wherein the anchor is configured for a suture to be disposed within the through hole, such that the insertion member is proximal to the suture upon placement of the suture within the through hole.
2. The anchor assembly of claim 1 wherein slots extend an entire distance between openings of the through holes and a proximal end of the anchor.
3. The anchor assembly of claim 1 wherein the anchor includes a closed-ended distal end.
4. The anchor assembly of claim 1 wherein the cannulation is triangular-shaped.
5. The anchor assembly of claim 1 wherein the insertion member is non-tapered.
6. The anchor assembly of claim 1 further comprising depressions located adjacent the threads at the cavity opening.
7. The anchor assembly of claim 1 wherein in the suture fixation position, the entire insertion member is recessed within the anchor cavity.
a headless, non-tapered insertion member at least partially disposed within the anchor cavity, the insertion member including a threaded body and a cannulation extending a substantial length of the insertion member, the threaded body configured to engage the anchor cavity threads and move the insertion member so as to cover the first and second openings when the insertion member is in a suture fixation position; and wherein the insertion member includes a proximal portion having an opening and a flat distal portion, the flat distal portion located opposite the bottom portion of the cavity; wherein the anchor assembly is configured for a suture to be disposed within the through hole, the insertion member threadingly engaged with the cavity threads and adjacent the through hole during placement of the suture within the through hole.
9. The anchor assembly of claim 8 wherein the anchor includes a rigid body.
10. The anchor assembly of claim 8 wherein slots extend an entire distance between the through hole and a proximal end of the anchor.
11. The anchor assembly of claim 8 wherein the anchor has a pointed distal end.
12. The anchor assembly of claim 8 wherein the anchor has a closed-ended distal end.
13. The anchor assembly of claim 8 wherein the cannulation is triangular shaped.
a headless, cannulated insertion member including threads extending along an outer surface of the insertion member extending from a proximal end, the insertion member threads configured to engage threads of the anchor cavity and move the insertion member so as to cover the first and second openings when the insertion member is located in a suture fixation position; and wherein the anchor assembly is configured for a suture to be disposed within the through hole with the insertion member disposed within the anchor cavity and adjacent the through hole.
15. The anchor assembly of claim 14 wherein the insertion member is non-tapered.
16. The anchor assembly of claim 14 wherein slots are located on opposite sides of the anchor and each slot extends an entire distance between openings to the through hole and a proximal end of the anchor.
17. The anchor assembly of claim 14 wherein the anchor has a closed-ended distal end.
18. The anchor assembly of claim 14 wherein the cannulation is triangular shaped.
International Search and Written Opinion for PCT/US2010/056107 dated May 25, 2011.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2008/081342, dated Feb. 26, 2009.
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2010/056107, dated May 25, 2011.
Office Action for corresponding Chinese application No. 201080061088.8 dated Jun. 23, 2014.
Office Action for corresponding Japanese application No. 2012-538921 dated Jul. 22, 2014.
Office Action for corresponding Japanese application No. 2013-164031 dated Jul. 28, 2014.
Office Action issued in corresponding Australian patent application No. 2008316604 dated Feb. 5, 2013.
Office Action received for corresponding JP Application No. 2010-531316, dated Feb. 26, 2013.
Office action received in corresponding Australian patent application No. 2010319635 dated Apr. 29, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding Australian patent application No. 2010319635 dated Jan. 11, 2016.
Office action received in corresponding Chinese patent application No. 201080061088.8 dated Feb. 27, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding European patent application No. 08 842 610.1-1654 dated Sep. 23, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding European patent application No. 08 842 610.1-654 dated Feb. 11, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding European patent application No. 088426101.1-1654 dated Nov. 23, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding Japanese patent application No. 2012-538921 dated Mar. 26, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding Japanese patent application No. 2012-538921 dated Nov. 30, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding Japanese patent application No. 2013-164031 dated Feb. 18, 2015.
Office action received in corresponding Russian patent application No. 2012122617/14(034396) dated Feb. 19, 2015.
Partial International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2010/056107 dated Feb. 23, 2011.

matches:
Application No. 61
Application No. 61
Application No. 61
Application No. 61
Application No. 61
application No. 201080061088
application No. 2012
application No. 2013
application No. 2008316604
Application No. 2010
application No. 2010319635
application No. 2010319635
application No. 201080061088
application No. 08
application No. 08
application No. 088426101
application No. 2012
application No. 2012
application No. 2013
application No. 2012122617