Practice Areas
- Defective Medical Products
- Guidant Class Action Lawsuit
- Medicines
- Compounding Pharmacy Error
- Visicol Kidney Failure
- Visicol Lawsuit
- OsmoPrep Lawsuit
- Acute Phosphate Nephropathy
- DePuy Lawsuit
- Hip Replacement Lawsuit
- Hip Replacement Lawyer
- Hip Replacement Recall Lawsuit
- Hip Revision Surgery Lawsuit
- Hip Revision Surgery Lawyer
- Johnson & Johnson Hip Class Action Lawsuit
- Lawsuit against DePuy for Hip Revision Surgery
- Yasmin Lawsuit
- Yasmin Class Action Lawsuit
- Yaz Lawsuit
- Class Action Lawsuit Yaz
- Hip Replacement Lawyer Minneapolis, MN
- Lawyer for DePuy Lawsuit Minneapolis, MN
- FDA Recalls
- News & Topics
Other Practice Areas
- E coli Poisoning
- Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS)
- Campylobacter
- Clostridium Perfringens
- Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS)
- Hepatitis A Food Poisoning
- Listeria Poisoning
- Listeriosis
- Salmonella Lawyer
- Shigella
- Amputation
- Burn Attorney
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Wrongful Death
- Car Accident Attorney MN
- Defective Products
- Foodborne Illness
- Medical Malpractice
- MN Accident Attorney
- Minnesota Dog Bite Attorney
- Minnesota Injury Lawyer
- Semi Truck Accident Lawyer MN
- Child Safety Lawyers
Personal Injury and Wrongful Death
Guidant CONTAK RENEWAL® Defibrillator Recall
On June 29, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of Guidant CONTAK RENEWAL®, Model H135, and CONTAK RENEWAL® 2, Model H155, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators (CRT-Ds). (See the FDA Class I recall of Guidant CONTAK RENEWAL® defibrillators.) According to the FDA announcement, a deterioration in a wire insulator could cause a short circuit, resulting in the device’s inability to deliver an electric shock during episodes of arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm). This could cause serious injury or death. As of December 28, 2005, there had been 35 clinical failures of the CONTAK RENEWAL® Guidant Defibrillators. 5 of these people have died. (See information on the December 28, 2005, Guidant defibrillator update.)
If you or a loved one has one of these Guidant heart defibrillators you or the family member may:
- Want to have the CONTAK RENEWAL® Guidant defibrillator removed or
- Have experienced injury from a failure of the Guidant heart defibrillator.
Sadly, a family member may have died as a result of a Guidant defibrillator failure. In any of these cases, even if you only suspect an injury or death was caused by a Guidant defibrillator, lawyers at PritzkerOlsen, P.A. are available for a free consultation. You may be entitled to compensation from Guidant. Damages sought against Guidant could include compensation for physical and mental pain and suffering, medical and hospital expenses and punitive damages.
Guidant lawsuits involve complex medical, scientific and legal issues. Attorney Fred Pritzker has more than 30 years of experience successfully fighting for the rights of injured people. During that time, he has focused his practice on complex cases, including defective medical device cases. As a testimony to his excellence, he has been selected for inclusion in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
If you have questions about Guidant defibrillators, lawyers at PritzkerOlsen, P.A. can help. You can reach Attorney Fred Pritzker and the other lawyers at PritzkerOlsen, P.A. by calling toll-free at 1-888-377-8900, by emailing info@pritzkerlaw.com, or by filling out the online consultation form. Consultations are free.
PritzkerOlsen, P.A. has already filed suit against Guidant on behalf of people who had these Guidant implantable heart defibrillator devises implanted in their bodies. It will cost you nothing to talk to Fred Pritzker about your CONTAK RENEWAL® Guidant defibrillator, and it may result in the peace of mind you deserve. PritzkerOlsen, P.A. is a national law firm with offices centrally located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. We represent clients throughout the United States.
Free Case Consultation
We are Not Paid Unless You Win
Our attorneys work on a continguency fee basis, meaning you do not have to pay our law firm for representing you unless we win you money.
Firm News
AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell
![]()
Attorneys Fred Pritzker and Eric Hageman have been given the highest rating by Martindale-Hubbell for attorney, AV Preeminent. An AV® certification mark is a significant rating accomplishment - a testament to the fact that a lawyer's peers rank him or her at the highest level of professional excellence.
Adjunct Teaching Position At U of M Law School
Attorney Brendan Flaherty has accepted an adjunct teaching position at the University of Minnesota Law School. For the 2011 spring semester, Flaherty will teach a course entitled "Practice and Professionalism," which will introduce students to foundational lawyering skills and professional responsibility issues.
Attorney Elliot Olsen Speaks at Conference
Attorney Elliot Olsen recently spoke at the Seventh Annual LifeScience Alley Conference in Minneapolis on Preemption and the Future of Medical Device Litigation. He appeared with Randall Pattee of Lindquist and Vennum and Jean Lance, VP of corporate legal and general counsel for Boston Scientific.
Named Super Lawyer
In recognition of their
achievements, Attorneys Fred Pritzker, Elliot Olsen and Eric Hageman were named "Super Lawyers" by Law & Politics magazine. According to Super Lawyers, "The objective is to create a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys that can be used as a resource to assist attorneys and consumers in the search for legal counsel."
Brendan Flaherty Named a Rising Star
In recognition of his achievements, Attorney Brendan Flaherty was named a 2010 Rising Star by Minnesota Law & Politics. Only 2.5 percent of the state’s lawyers are included on the list, which highlights Minnesota’s best up-and-coming legal talent.
Fred Pritzker Listed in The Best Lawyers in America
Fred Pritzker has been notified that he will again be listed in The Best Lawyers in America for his work in personal injury litigation.
This is attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The result of each case is determined by the specific facts and the applicable law.

