Thursday, March 12, 2015 - Subscribers to UnitedHealth insurance will see limits imposed upon their coverage for hysterectomies beginning April 6, according to a recent article in the New York Times.* This news comes just months after the FDA updated a Safety Communication, warning against the use of power morcellators for most uterine surgery, due to a risk of spreading undetected cancer.** Morcellator attorneys provide lawsuit news and cancer warning information at their website, MorcellatorCancerLawsuitCenter.com.
UnitedHealth‘s new guidelines, which take effect next month, limit the use of laparoscopic morcellators for uterine surgery, favoring vaginal hysterectomies instead, as outlined by the New York Times article. The company says it will require advance notice for laparoscopic surgery, and that unless the procedure is deemed medically necessary it will not be approved, according to the article. The insurance company cited new guidelines from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as the basis for the policy change, according to the news piece.
This announcement comes just months after the FDA warned against the widespread use of power morcellators for uterine surgery such as hysterectomy due to the risk of spreading unsuspected cancer. The November 24, 2014 statement** entitled "UPDATED Laparoscopic Uterine Power Morcellation in Hysterectomy and Myomectomy: FDA Safety Communication" provides the strongest warning yet from the federal agency:
"When used for hysterectomy or myomectomy in women with uterine fibroids, laparoscopic power morcellation poses a risk of spreading unsuspected cancerous tissue, notably uterine sarcomas, beyond the uterus. The FDA is warning against using laparoscopic power morcellators in the majority of women undergoing hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids... If laparoscopic power morcellation is performed in women with unsuspected uterine sarcoma, there is a risk that the procedure will spread the cancerous tissue within the abdomen and pelvis, significantly worsening the patient"s long-term survival."**
Morcellator lawsuits have been filed nationwide by and on behalf of women who were diagnosed with advanced stage cancer following a routine uterine morcellator surgery, alleging the upstaging or advancement of the cancer was caused by the surgery. One such lawsuit which was filed in Michigan on January 26, 2015 alleged that the plaintiff‘s diagnosis of diagnosis of Stage 4, metastasized bone and breast cancer was caused by the mincing and spreading of undetected uterine cancer during a morcellator surgery to remove uterine fibroids, according to court documents.
Information on power morcellator warnings for cancer has been compiled by attorneys handling morcellator surgery claims.
"This morcellator lawsuit and its corresponding allegations represent a trend we are seeing around the country of women filing lawsuits alleging they have been harmed by power morcellators, according to court documents," says attorney Jim Onder. "We believe that women who have been diagnosed with advanced-stage cancer following a uterine surgery utilizing a power morcellator device may be entitled to damages."
The Onder Law Firm, known nationwide for its superior work in family and product liability law, provides comprehensive information and timely news updates on morcellator surgery lawsuits at MorcellatorCancerLawsuitCenter.com. The morcellator attorneys offer no-cost, confidential case review to women and the family members of women who were diagnosed with cancer following morcellator surgery. Lawyers handling morcellator claims believe women who were diagnosed with cancer following uterine fibroid or hysterectomy surgery may be entitled to real compensation for the harm and damages they sustained.
The Onder Law Firm welcomes morcellator lawsuit inquiries from law firms in regards to handling them or working as co-counsel.
*"UnitedHealth Tightens Rules Covering Hysterectomies", nytimes.com/aponline/2015/02/26/business/ap-us-unitedhealth-hysterectomies.html?_r=0, 2/26/15
***Denise Whitfield v. Karl Storz, Case 2:15-cv-10352, filed 1/26/15