Articles Posted in Artificial Hip

Published on:

One of the few individuals to lose a case against Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson in a case involving the Depuy ASR MoM artificial hip has been awarded a new trial.

Strum Depuy ASR TrialIn 2013, a Chicago jury found that Depuy was not responsible for Ms. Strum’s injuries following the failure of the ASR hip. The jury found that the hip components manufactured by Depuy Orthopaedics did not cause the injuries to the plaintiff. Ms. Strum had sued DePuy in Chicago in 2011, alleging that the DePuy ASR implanted in January 2008 failed and required painful revision surgery. She also claimed that she suffered from metallosis.

On September 19, 2017, Judge Mary Dooling in Chicago granted Ms. Strum a new trial on the grounds that a surgeon and joint replacement scientist was unfairly prevented from testifying on behalf of the plaintiff in the original trial.

Published on:

Depuy ASR Settlement Deadlines
I get calls from people all over the country worried that they may have missed a deadline for participation in the Depuy ASR Artificial Hip Settlement. I understand the alarm. It would be dreadful to have the ASR metal-on-metal hip implanted, suffer mysterious pains and then elevated metal levels in the blood, discover the artificial hip components failed, go through a painful revision surgery, and then find that the settlement deadlines have all passed. The reality is this: at the moment, all the deadlines have passed. But many viable ASR claims against Depuy and Johnson & Johnson are still out there, and they should be fairly compensated like all the injured people that have come before.

Third Settlement (Second Extension)

In the most recent extension of the ASR Master Settlement Agreement, the deadline to enroll in the settlement was July 19, 2017. This second extension of the Master Settlement applied to individuals who had the ASR hip removed in revision surgery between between January 31, 2015 and February 15, 2017. The reason for this specific set of dates is that the settlement committees for plaintiffs and defendants wanted to include victims who had revision surgery somewhat late in the game. Recall that the Depuy ASR hip was first sold in 2005, twelve years ago. It was sold aggressively for five years, until it was finally recalled on August 24, 2010. Thousands of people were implanted with the ASR hip in that five-year period. Most of them were forced to undergo revision surgery before August 31, 2013, the deadline for participation in the first settlement. But hundreds of people did not undergo revision surgery until after August 31, 2013. Therefore, a first and then a second extension of the original agreement was established.

Published on:

Some of my clients have been asking me what is going on with the fourth Depuy Pinnacle bellwether trial. Non-clients have also been calling to inquire about the status of the trial. Did it start this week? Was it postponed? What is the deal with Depuy and Johnson & Johnson trying to stop the trial? Let’s take a quick look:

Fourth Bellwether Trial Underway 

Depuy Pinnacle MDL in Texas
The short answer is yes, the fourth bellwether trial began on Monday (September 18, 2017). Six plaintiffs injured by the Depuy Pinnacle hip (and four spouses) are bringing their claims against defendants in Dallas, Texas before Judge Kinkeade. You can read about previous Pinnacle bellwether trials and their huge jury awards here and here.

Published on:

Artificial Hip System
The vast majority of artificial hip failures over the past decade involved metal-on-metal (MoM) hip components. These medical devices were meant to revolutionize the artificial hip market. Specifically, the all-metal hip components were intended to last a long time, and much longer than older generation artificial hips using materials like ceramics and plastics, which had a tendency to wear down and “fail” after twelve or fifteen years. Beyond that, the metal-on-metal artificial hips were touted to withstand the rigors of active, athletic patients. It sounded like a terrific advancement in the development of artificial hips. The problem is, the metal-on-metal design did not work, in many cases because the metal acetabular cup and the metal femoral head would grind together day after day, month after month, releasing harmful metal debris (metallosis) into the patient’s body. Far too many people were forced to get revision surgeries a few years after the implant surgery to remove the metal hips.

It turned out to be a disaster for thousands of patients and for several large medical device manufacturers. Depuy and Zimmer, to name just two companies, faced thousands of lawsuits from people injured by the metal-on-metal artificial hips. Many of those cases are resolved or resolving, but many more await settlement or jury trials.

The LFIT V40 Is a Metal-on-Polyethylene Artificial Hip

Published on:

I received the following message from a plaintiff in one of the metal-on-metal artificial hip MDLs. I am very grateful for the note and thought I would share it:

entrepreneur-593378_1280-300x200Plaintiffs in metal-on-metal hip (MoM) cases around the country owe thanks to Clay Hodges for his tireless advocacy on their behalf.  Early on, Clay posted an on-line brochure that served as a virtual guidebook for explaining the nature of the cases on how both attorneys and plaintiffs should think about it.  Since then, his articles and posts have provided timely and accurate updates about the litigation when often it was difficult to get reliable news for other sources. And he has done this not just for his clients but all MoM plaintiffs who have agonized to understand this case and what options they might have.   For all of us, he has provided far more than just information, but a genuine sense that someone really cares and is in our corner.

G.S.

Published on:

Last week I wrote a timeline on the key events surrounding the failure of the Depuy ASR artificial hip. Today I want to take a similar look at the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip. The Pinnacle was supposed to be the ASR’s more active and athletic brother. But it didn’t turn out that way.

1995: Study on Metal-on-Metal Hips Released

Study on Metal on Metal Artificial Hips
For all metal-on-metal artificial hips, we have to start with the central question: what did the manufacturer know, and when did the manufacturer know it? In 1995, Dr. Graham Isaac released a short paper discussing the problems with metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hips. Dr. Isaac explained that the performance of MoM hip implants was “unpredictable,” that the hips may work well for some time “before suffering catastrophic breakdown . . . accompanied by a release of a large volume of debris.” This paper and Depuy’s other internal documents suggest that Depuy Orthopaedics should have known about the metal-on-metal risk factors in 1995. In fact, one doctor noted that Depuy needed “to be cautious of the legal/litigation issues and lawyers, etc…perception of metal debris and metal-ion release.” That’s not good.

Published on:

I have written extensively about metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hips. Specifically, I have covered the painful and sordid history of the Depuy ASR metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hip. In this post I set out a timeline of important dates in the the journey of the Depuy ASR hip: from (quickly) finding its way into the market, then into thousands of patients, followed by thousands of revision surgeries, and ultimately to a massive multidistrict litigation (MDL) in federal court in Ohio involving thousands of injured people. Let’s take a look at the calendar of events of the Depuy ASR product failure.

1995

Doctor reviewing Depuy ASR hip X-ray
In 1995, Dr. Graham Isaac released a short paper discussing the problems with metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hips. Dr. Isaac explained how metal wear debris created from MoM hip joints was a serious problem because of poor design and manufacturing of the metal components. Dr. Isaac also stated that even with higher quality manufacturing and engineering techniques, the performance of MoM hip implants were as “unpredictable as ever, working well for a period of time before suffering catastrophic breakdown . . . accompanied by a release of a large volume of debris.” This paper and Depuy’s other internal documents suggest that Depuy Orthopaedics most likely knew of the MoM risk factors in 1995, twenty-two years ago, and ten years before the company began selling the Depuy ASR artificial hip. In fact, one doctor noted that Depuy needed “to be cautious of the legal/litigation issues and lawyers, etc…perception of metal debris and metal-ion release.” I wrote more about what Depuy may have known about the serious risks of the ASR hip here.

Published on:

Artificial hip removed as part of revision surgery

If you have been the victim of a failed medical device like a metal-on-metal artificial hip, you may not ever think about preserving evidence. But it is essential to your product liability case. In this post I want to give you some tips about preserving medical device components that have been removed (“explanted”) from your body in a revision surgery. This information is important for all those undergoing revision surgery, but especially those of you who hope to pursue a product liability case without a lawyer.

Here is a quick illustration: You undergo hip replacement surgery in October 2009. In August 2010, you receive a letter from the manufacturer of the artificial hip stating that a recall has been issued on the medical device implanted in your body. Since the device is implanted in your body, you can’t easily turn it back in for a refund. So you monitor the situation. Ten months later, you begin to feel discomfort, and then outright pain. After a few more months you and your orthopedic surgeon decide to have the device removed in a revision surgery. In this operation, the surgeon will remove the defective parts of the artificial hip and replace them with new, non-defective parts. Those removed parts will sit on a surgical tray, and after the surgery they will end up . . . somewhere. They could be thrown out; they could be placed in a Ziploc bag and abandoned in a storage room; they could be handed over to the medical device manufacturer’s representative, who is often in the room during your surgery.

But they need to go to you.

Quite simply, before the revision surgery, the patient should take steps to ensure that he or she will be given the explanted medical device components. This usually involves careful conversations with the surgeon and the surgeon’s nurse or other staff. Unfortunately, most patients have no idea that need to take this step.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Stryker LFIT V40 Artificial Hip MDL
We’ve previously blogged about Stryker LFIT V40 artificial hip problems, discussing a recall made back in August 2016 and how to tell if you have an artificial hip that’s part of that recall. Since those posts a lot has been going on in courthouses across the country, with dozens of lawsuits popping up from individuals who received affected artificial hips made by Striker Orthopaedics and its subsidiary, Howmedica Osteonics Corporation (HOC).

Just recently, approximately 33 pending lawsuits against HOC were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). In a way, you can think of this consolidation as a “things just got real” moment for HOC. But what’s the big deal about the Stryker LFIT V40 litigation now being in MDL status? Let’s begin by discussing the underlying lawsuits.

Why Are the Plaintiffs Suing?

Published on:

Depuy Pinnacle AppealNow it’s the plaintiffs’ turn. The five victims of the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip have answered the appeal of Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And as they did at trial, the plaintiffs have come out fighting.

Recap of Depuy’s Appeal

A few weeks ago I wrote about the appeal brought by Depuy and Johnson & Johnson after a Texas jury awarded $502 million dollars to five plaintiffs. You can read about the Defendants’ appeal here. But to recap, Depuy and J&J argue that they were unfairly prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ team aggressive tactics at trial. They argue that Defendants are entitled to a new trial because the plaintiffs’ team had “a strategy” to “inflame the jury through highly prejudicial evidence and wholly inappropriate argument.”