Hip Replacement Lawsuits

hip replacement lawsuitsHip replacement implants are meant to help patients with limited mobile function and severe pain in their natural hip joints. Hip implants are placed within a patient’s femur and hip joint through a process called hip replacement surgery. When hip implants fail, the patient requires hip revision surgery to fix or replace the implant entirely. Hip revision surgery is extremely invasive and involves breaking or dislocating previous hip implant devices. For these reasons, hip revision surgery comes with elevated health risks for the patient. When a hip implant fails, and the hip replacement requires hip revision surgery, patients frequently file hip replacement lawsuits to help cover for medical expenses, lost wages, loss of consortium, and pain and suffering.

Types of Hip Replacements

There are many hip replacement options for patients today, including:

  • DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement System
  • DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System
  • DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System
  • Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implants
  • Stryker Rejuvenate Hip System
  • Stryker ABG II Modular Neck Hip Stems
  • Smith & Nephew R3 Acetabular System
  • Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Devices
  • Wright CONSERVE Plus Hip Devices
  • Wright PROFEMURE Z Stem

While all of these hip replacement devices have been reported to cause health problems for a variety of patients, not all of these hip replacement devices have been recalled. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have received thousands of adverse event reports regarding hip devices. In particular, metal on metal hip implants impose the largest risks on patients. As a result, metal on metal hip replacements lawsuits are the most central aspect of hip implant litigation.

Filing a Hip Replacement Lawsuit

Patients that are filing hip replacements lawsuits are requesting financial compensation for:

  • Pain and suffering
  • Loss of consortium
  • Medical expenses
  • Lost wages
  • Caregiver expenses
  • Punitive damages

DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuits

hip replacement infographicDePuy is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that manufactures medical devices, such as the DePuy Pinnacle, DePuy ASR Acetabular, and DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing systems. DePuy and Johnson & Johnson have received countless hip replacement lawsuits as a result of these hip replacement devices. The DePuy ASR hip devices have been recalled, while the DePuy Pinnacle Hip Replacement System has not.

Currently, there are more than 7,000 pending DePuy ASR hip replacement lawsuits in federal courts. There are another 2,000 DePuy ASR hip replacement lawsuits pending in California state courts. Johnson & Johnson has set aside roughly $2 billion to settle these lawsuits. The first DePuy ASR hip replacement lawsuits filed in state courts were settled in August 2012, awarding approximately $200,000 to each victim.

For more on Depuy hip replacement lawsuits, click here.

Biomet Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Biomet makes the M2a Magnum hip implant, which was approved by the FDA in 2004. This metal-on-metal hip implant was hailed for use in younger individuals because Biomet claimed that the hip replacement device was durable and would last longer. Biomet claimed the M2a Magnum hip replacement device would last at least 15 years. However, by 2011, the FDA had received over 100 reports of adverse events and M2a Magnum hip failure. All of these adverse event reports occurred within the first couple years of a patient’s hip replacement surgery. The FDA has yet to recall the Biomet M2a Magnum hip replacement system.

Biomet is battling numerous lawsuits for faulty M2a Magnum hip replacement devices. On top of individual lawsuits from American patients, Biomet recently fought claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Biomet was found guilty of bribing doctors in China, Brazil, and Argentina to use its hip replacement devices between 2000 and 2008. To settle the claims, Biomet paid $22.9 million in 2012.

For more on Biomet hip replacement lawsuits, click here.

Stryker Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Stryker is the manufacturer of the Rejuvenate and ABG II hip replacement systems. Both Stryker hip replacement devices were recalled in July 2012. The recalls occurred after reports to the FDA of corrosion, fretting, and metallosis from the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip replacement systems. Many patients endured hip revision surgery due to faulty Stryker hip replacement products. As a result, there are numerous hip replacement lawsuits brought against Stryker. Many of these hip replacement lawsuits have been consolidated into Multi-County Litigation (MCL) in New Jersey as of January 2013.

For more on Stryker hip replacement lawsuits, click here.

Smith & Nephew Hip Lawsuits

In 2012, Smith & Nephew recalled its R3 Acetabular Hip Replacement System due to faulty metal lining. The hip replacement device was first approved for use in the United States in 2009. The Smith & Nephew R3 Acetabular hip device experienced a higher rate of revision surgery than average. Within the first four years of hip replacement surgery, 6.3-percent of patients with an R3 Acetabular Hip Replacement System required revision surgery.

Patients who required revision surgery after their hip replacement are filing lawsuits against Smith & Nephew. Furthermore, Smith & Nephew has already spent $28.9 million on settling claims with the U.S. Department of Justice. The settlement also included 18 months of close federal monitoring. It occurred in 2007 after Smith & Nephew was found guilty of financially bribing American surgeons to use their hip replacement devices.

For more on Smith & Nephew hip replacement lawsuits, click here.

Zimmer Hip Implant Lawsuits

Zimmer manufactures a hip replacement device known as the Durom Cup. The Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement device was voluntarily recalled in July of 2008. The Zimmer Durom Cup recall occurred after numerous reports of faulty hip replacement devices that loosened after hip replacement surgery. In some cases, patients required hip revision surgery. As patients filed hip replacement lawsuits against Zimmer, the company quickly set aside $271.7 million to settle allegations and compensate victims.

For more on Zimmer hip replacement lawsuits, click here.

Wright Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Wright Medical makes the CONSERVE Hip Replacement Systems. The manufacturer claimed that this product would allow for more durability and minimized the risk of dislocation for the hip replacement patient. However, Wright CONSERVE Plus Hip Replacement Systems have displayed a higher rate of failure than average.

The hip replacement device required revision surgery for roughly 8.36-percent of patients within the first 5 years of hip replacement surgery. The FDA has received over 200 reports of adverse events with the CONSERVE Plus Hip Replacement System. Wright is currently battling hip replacement lawsuits for its faulty CONSERVE Plus hip devices, in addition to numerous lawsuits filed against Wright for its faulty PROFEMUR Z hip devices. During previous litigation, Wright has already paid $7.9 million in 2007 to settle allegations of bribing doctors to use their hip replacement devices.

For more on Wright hip replacement lawsuits, click here.

View Sources
  1. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. CONSERVE® Plus Total Resurfacing Hip System - P030042. Food and Drug Administration, 2012. Print. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm191091.htm
  2. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Design Features and Clinical Performance of Biomet MoM Total Hip Arthroplasty Systems. Food and Drug Administration, 2012. Print. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/OrthopaedicandRehabilitationDevicesPanel/UCM310221.pdf
  3. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. MAUDE Adverse Event Report: BIOMET INC.BIOMET HIP IMPLANTMETAL HIP IMPLANT WITH RING LOCK. Food and Drug Administration, 2013. Print. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2554592
  4. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. MAUDE Adverse Event Report: SMITH AND NEPHEWANTHOLOGY FEMORAL COMPONENTBIRMINGHAM SYSTEM. Food and Drug Administration, 2013. Print. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=2650971
  5. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Medical Devices - Concerns about Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants. Food and Drug Administration, 2013. Print. http://www.fda.gov/Medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/implantsandprosthetics/metalonmetalhipimplants/ucm241604.htm
  6. United States. Department of Health and Human Services. Medical Devices Recalls. Food and Drug Administration, 2013. Print. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/MetalonMetalHipImplants/ucm241770.htm