Current Lawsuits: Hernia Mesh | Depuy Pinnacle Hip | Stryker Hip | Talcum Powder
Personal Injury Lawyer -

Free case review

facebook logo google+ logo twitter logo youtube logo

Metal Hip Replacement Lawsuits, Recalls and Risks

Lawsuits Involving Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

With evidence as to the dangers of metal-on-metal hip implant devices continuing to emerge, tens of thousands of plaintiffs around the world have sued manufacturers over injuries allegedly caused by the faulty products. For example:

In December 2010, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered that all federal lawsuits involving the DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip implant be organized as multidistrict litigation (MDL) being overseen by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

DePuy Pinnacle
Since May 2011, federal cases involving the DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip implant have been consolidated as multidistrict litigation (MDL) taking place in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Stryker Rejuvenate & Stryker ABG II
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving federal claims over the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II metal-on-metal hip implants is taking place in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) & R3 Hip System
Since April 2014, plaintiffs suing Smith & Nephew over its Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) system have had their cases consolidated as multidistrict litigation (MDL) making its way through the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. More recently, in addition to the plaintiffs suing over hip resurfacing procedures, a separate track was added to the MDL for plaintiffs who had undergone total hip replacement surgery using Smith & Nephew’s R3 hip implants. according to the Court's website , between the two tracks, the MDL involves over 350 active lawsuits. Plaintiffs have alleged that Smith & Nephew’s metal-on-metal designs “caused cobalt and chromium ions from the implants to migrate into surrounding tissues, resulting in adverse symptoms like pain, metallosis, and bone and tissue necrosis.”

Wright Conserve, Dynasty, Lineage, and Profemur Hip Implants
By November 2017, litigation involving various metal-on-metal hip implant devices manufactured by Wright Medical Technology, including the Conserve, Dynasty, Lineage, and Profemur models, was resolved under multiple settlement agreements, bringing to an end multidistrict litigation (MDL) being overseen by the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The first such agreement, reached in November 2016, reportedly had settled approximately 1,292 claims related to the Wright devices.

“The result of the parties’ Settlement Agreements is that all of the current cases in the MDL are now resolved,” Judge William S. Duffey Jr., the judge overseeing the MDL, wrote in 2017, suggesting that the litigation had run its course and recommending that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation refrain from transferring any new cases to the MDL.

Zimmer Durom Cup
On May 13, 2016, United States District Court Judge Susan D. Wigenton signed off on a settlement agreement establishing a process for resolving claims related to Zimmer’s Durom Cup hip implant product, which had been the subject of multidistrict litigation (MDL). Any plaintiffs seeking restitution from Zimmer over injuries allegedly caused by the Zimmer Durom Cup must have registered with the settlement program by May 31, 2016.

Under the US Durom Cup Settlement Program, qualifying patients were determined to be eligible for either the Base Award Program or the Fixed Award Program. Under the Base Award Program, claimants receive “an award payment of $175,000, which may then be increased or decreased based on certain, pre-defined criteria that apply to individual claims.” By contrast, under the Fixed Award Program, which “is for claimants in certain situations that limit the value of their claims”, the claimant received $25,000 “and no further adjustments are available.”

If you or a loved one has been forced to undergo revision surgery or have suffered other serious injuries due to a metal-on-metal hip implant, contact the experienced team of dedicated attorneys at for a free legal consultation with a licensed attorney!

Talk with a Metal Hip Expert Now!

Metal Hip Replacement Lawsuit News & Updates

Zimmer Metal Hip Lawsuit News - August 20, 2018: Plaintiff Missed Filing Deadline by Just days, Case gets Tossed

Stryker Hip Lawsuit News - August 13, 2018: NYU Study on Stryker Implants Prompts Hospital to Cease Use

Metal-on-Metal (MoM) Hip Implant Recalls in the United States

In addition to imposing higher hurdles for the approval of new metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implant devices, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also has recognized voluntary recalls by manufacturers of the following artificial hip devices and components that incorporate aspects (and risks) of metal-on-metal designs:

• DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR) Acetabular Hip System (Initiated August 23, 2010)
• Stryker Rejuvenate Modular Stems (Initiated April 30, 2012)
• Stryker ABG II Hip System (Initiated April 30, 2012)
• Smith & Nephew R3 Acetabular System (Initiated 2010-2011)
• Smith & Nephew Modular SMF and Modular Redapt Femoral System (Initiated November 15, 2016)
• Wright Conserve Total Femoral Head (Initiated May 14, 2009)
• Wright Profemur R Revision Hip System (Initiated March 27, 2007)
• Zimmer Durom Acetabular Component (Initiated July 22, 2008)

Warnings, Alerts, and Safety Notices Issued for Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

United States

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published numerous publicly available documents highlighting the unique health risks posed by metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implant devices. While noting that “[m]etal-on-metal hip implants have the same adverse effects as other types of hip implants, including infection, loosening, bone loss, device or bone fracture, and joint dislocation,” the FDA also reports that “[i]n addition, metal particles from a metal-on-metal implant may cause a reaction around the joint, leading to deterioration of the tissue around the joint, loosening of the implant and failure of the device.”

Further, the FDA states unequivocally, “Metal ions from a metal-on-metal hip implant will enter the bloodstream.” (Emphasis added.)


On May 9, 2012, Health Canada simultaneously released notices to both orthopedic surgeons and patients addressing health concerns over metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants. Recognizing that “[i]n recent years, there has been an increase in awareness of pain, adverse local tissue reactions and implant loosening in patients with MoM hip implants,” the Canadian government informed patients that “[s]ome of these adverse effects are thought to be the result of increased levels of tiny metal particles and metal ions released by the [MoM] implant.”

Health Canada further identified certain factors increasing a patient’s risk of adverse local tissue reactions following implantation of a metal-on-metal artificial hip device. Those at increased risk of adverse reactions include female patients, patients with higher-than-usual activity levels, overweight patients, and patients who have undergone hip replacement surgery on both hips.

United Kingdom

Countries outside North America also have issued warnings about the risks associated with metal-on-metal hip implant devices. For example, in 2010, 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2017, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom released a series of medical device alerts recommending extra monitoring, including blood tests, for patients with metal-on-metal implants. The MHRA even has established an independent Metal-on-Metal Expert Advisory Group (MoM EAG) dedicated to specifically monitoring the health impacts of metal-on-metal implants.

In its alert published June 29, 2017, the MHRA, in coordination with the MoM EAG, established revised procedures “for the follow-up and investigation of all patients implanted with MoM hip replacements.” (Emphasis added.) These measures include not only conducting blood tests in search of elevated levels of cobalt and chromium, but also the use of imaging technology such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound to reveal symptoms like fluid collection in the area around the hip implant.

While the MHRA acknowledges that the “majority of patients with MoM hip replacements currently have well-functioning hips”, it also warns that “some patients will develop progressive soft tissue reactions to the metal debris associated with MoM articulations.”

Further complicating the situation and making it necessary to engage in widespread screening using a variety of tools is the discovery that soft tissue damage may be occurring even in patients who are not presently demonstrating any of the associated symptoms. According to the MHRA Alert, “MHRA’s clinical orthopaedic experts have also observed soft tissue necrosis may occur in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients, and believe early detection of these events should give a better revision outcome should this becomes [sic.] necessary.”

In other words, with the negative effects of the metallic particles sometimes afflicting even those patients who are not demonstrating any of the classic symptoms, the United Kingdom has embraced a policy of closely monitoring every recipient of metal-on-metal implants for such impacts.

European Union

In September 2014, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) released its final opinion on “The safety of Metal-on-Metal joint replacements with a particular focus on hip implants”, concluding that “[a]ll types of MoM hip arthroplasties release metals in terms of particles, ions, and/or metallo-organic compounds.”

In its analysis, the SCENIHR distinguishes between local tissue reactions and systemic adverse responses associated with elevated levels of metal ions in the blood. Among local tissue reactions, the SCENIHR opinion lists a wide variety of symptoms “ranging from small asymptomatic tissue lesions to severe destruction of bone and soft tissue” with the more serious ailments including “metallosis, aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesions, pseudotumours [sic.] and adverse reactions to metal debris” that can occur in the short-, medium-, and long-term following surgery. Systemic adverse responses potentially include toxicity to internal organs, developmental problems, and cancer, all of which the SCENIHR concede require further exploration “because of the lack of data”.

Talk with a Metal Hip Expert Now!

What are the signs of a malfunctioning hip implant device?

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), patients should pay attention for the following signs, which, when occurring more than three months after surgery, could indicate that their hip implant device is not functioning properly:

• Pain in the groin, hip, or leg
• Swelling at or around the hip joint
• Increased difficulty walking; development of a limp
• Popping, grinding, clicking, or squeaking noises coming from the hip joint

Those patients experiencing such symptoms should contact their doctor for further examination.

Regulatory Action Involving Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants

Despite mounting evidence of the health risks posed by metal release from metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implant devices, as of November 30, 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved for use in the US 190 metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems and components manufactured by five different companies. However, by February 18, 2016, the agency had issued a final order “requiring manufacturers to submit a premarket approval (PMA) application for two types of MoM total hip replacement devices: the hip joint metal/metal semi-constrained with a cemented acetabular component and the hip joint metal/metal semi-constrained with an uncemented acetabular component.” Such applications must include information about known risks, the effectiveness of the hip implant device, and “full reports of all nonclinical and clinical information from investigations on the safety and effectiveness of the device for which premarket approval is sought.”

While not as severe as a product recall, the issuance of a rule requiring premarket approval (PMA) for metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants represents for the US FDA a tightening of its position with regards to the devices, making it more onerous for device makers to receive approval for new MoM hip implants. The final rule was issued following the voluntary recall by multiple companies in the United States of several metal-on-metal artificial hip devices and components thereof (see “ Sidebar: Metal-on-Metal [MoM] Hip Implants Recalled in the United States”).

Hip Replacement Surgery

Hip replacement surgery often is a last resort for patients suffering from serious deterioration of the hip joint that has not responded to other less-intrusive forms of treatment, like physical therapy. According to the National Institues of Health (NIH), the most common reason for patients to require hip replacement surgery is osteoarthritis, a condition that causes the deterioration of cartilage in the joint and can result in swelling, reduced range of motion, and intense pain, severely limiting a patient’s mobility and negatively impacting his or her quality of life.

Depending on the severity of the patient’s condition, hip replacement surgery can take the form of either hip resurfacing or, in more serious cases, total hip replacement. During hip resurfacing surgery, rather than the femoral head being removed in its entirety, it is shaved down and fitted with a metal cap. The hip socket, also known as the acetabulum, is cleared of injured bone and cartilage and then covered with a metallic shell. Unlike in total hip replacement surgery, in hip resurfacing surgery, both the ball and the socket lining are always made of metal.

When a patient requires total hip replacement surgery, all damaged portions of the hip joint are completely removed, and both the femoral head (the ball) and the acetabulum (the socket) are replaced with artificial components. These total hip replacement devices use various combinations of metal, polyethylene, and ceramic to form the ball and socket of the hip joint. Presently, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved five kinds of total hip replacement implants:

• Metal-on-Polyethylene - Metal ball with plastic socket, or socket with plastic lining
• Ceramic-on-Polyethylene - Ceramic ball with plastic socket, or socket with plastic lining
• Metal-on-Metal - Metal ball with metal socket
• Ceramic-on-Ceramic - Ceramic ball with ceramic-lined socket
• Ceramic-on-Metal - Ceramic ball with metal-lined socket

According to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)total hip replacement surgery rates among patients aged 45 and older have skyrocketed since the turn of the century, a trend that is only expected to continue in coming decades. A 2015 study by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) found that total hip replacement rates for the over-45 age group more than doubled between 2000 and 2010, from 138,700 to 310,800, making artificial hip implants potentially highly lucrative endeavors for medical device companies, among which competition has been intense.

The Risks of Hip Replacement Surgery

Hip replacement surgery is a serious medical procedure that requires, on average, four days of post-operation hospitalization followed by months of challenging recovery. In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns of the following risks associated with all types of hip replacement surgery:

• Negative reaction to anesthesia
• Heart attack
• Infection
• Excessive bleeding
• Blood clots

The Risks of Metal-on-Metal (MoM) Hip Implants

Unfortunately, the growing number of hip replacement surgeries also means that an increasing number of patients will be faced with the many hazards associated with hip implant devices. Metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants in particular have long been identified as posing increased risk to patients. As far back as the late 2000s, data began to reveal that metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants required revision surgery at a higher rate than their metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) counterparts.

Though all hip implant devices pose certain risks to patients, due to the materials of which they are made, metal-on-metal hip implants present unique concerns not associated with other types of artificial hips. When the metal femoral head inevitably rubs against the metal socket during physical activity, the friction causes metallic particles to be released into surrounding tissue. Metal release also has been observed emanating from other parts of metal-on-metal hip implants, such as the point at which the metal ball and the metal taper connecting the ball to the femur meet. Metal ions, which include substances such as cobalt and chromium, then enter the patient’s bloodstream, where they can spread throughout the body. While orthopedic surgeons are able to take certain steps to secure a better fit and reduce friction between the ball and socket, according to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “[T]here is no way to fully avoid the release of some metal particles” from metal-on-metal him implant devices.

The release of metallic particles into surrounding tissue can cause severe health complications for the patient, sometimes resulting in permanent injury and requiring removal and replacement, also called “revision”, of the hip implant device. As the FDA warns in a posting titled "Concerns about metal on metal hip implants", “Over time, the metal particles around some implants can cause damage to bone and/or tissue surrounding the implant and joint. … Soft tissue damage may lead to pain, implant loosening, device failure, and the need for revision surgery.” In some instances, the FDA even recommends considering patients “for earlier revision [removal and replacement of the metal-on-metal hip implant] to prevent extensive damage to bone, muscle and nerves.”

While most damage associated with the release of metallic particles from metal-on-metal hip implants occurs in the vicinity of the device, the presence of metal ions in the bloodstream generally is associated with a variety of health risks, raising concerns of more widespread complications. according to Australia's Department of Health, “At this time, there is insufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate that MoM hip implants produce side effects beyond those that may occur at the site of implantation. However, metal ions have been reported to be associated with effects on the heart, nervous system, endocrine system and skin.”

While doctors and researchers widely agree that metal-on-metal hip implants cause the release of metallic particles into surrounding tissue and that elevated levels of metal in the blood can have serious detrimental health impacts, there is no general consensus as to where the threshold lies between safe and dangerous concentrations of substances such as chromium and cobalt, making it difficult for healthcare providers to determine at what point it is necessary to remove a metal-on-metal hip implant. For example, a a final opinion released by the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIR) “concludes that critical values for systemic effects are not yet established for patients after MoM implantation because of the lack of data and it is thus not possible to provide indications on limit values for the metals in any forms.”

Similarly, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has written that “individuals vary in how they react to metal ions in their bodies. For example, one patient may develop a reaction in response to a very small amount of metal ions in their body, whereas a different patient may have a much larger amount of metal ions in their bodies before they develop a reaction.”

The lack of information about what constitutes “safe” levels of metal in the blood leaves both patients and their physicians without a firm basis for weighing the detrimental impact a metal-on-metal implant may be having on the patient’s body and for determining when revision surgery, which comes with its own serious risks, may be appropriate.

What are the health risks associated with elevated levels of metal in the bloodstream?

According to the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), the release of metals “in terms of particles, ions, and/or metallo-organic compounds” and the “deposition of these substances in body fluids and tissues may lead to local and/or systemic adverse health effects” including:

Local Tissue Reactions:
• Small asymptomatic tissue lesions
• Severe destruction of bone and soft tissues
• Metallosis
• Aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis associated lesions
• Pseudotumors • Adverse reactions to metal debris

Systemic Adverse Responses:
• Systemic organ toxicity
• Carcinogenicity (potential to cause cancer)
• Teratogenicity (potential to cause developmental harm)

Metal On Metal Hip Replacement Lawsuit FAQ's

How much will this cost?
There is no fee unless and until we win for you. Our straightforward fee agreement sets out the simple terms of our fees and costs when we win your case. We will never ask you to send us money. Ever.

Where will my case be filed?
Depending upon the analysis of your medical records and confirmation of the model of your hip implant, your case may be filed in one of the metal hip MDLs or in a State Court coordinated proceeding.

Is this a Class Action?
No. A class action is where one or two people represent everyone and make the decisions for you. With metal hip claims, each case is individual and you, with your attorney, make the decisions about the important events in your case like whether to enroll in a settlement program when it becomes available. In the legal world, this is called a “mass tort”.

Do I have to go to Court?
Probably not. With thousands of similar cases filed before yours, it is very unlikely that you will ever have to go to Court. 99% of cases like this resolve in a settlement program.

Do you sue my doctor?
No. We do not sue or make any claims against your doctors. We believe that the surgeons are the victims of the greedy medical company as well. In fact, many doctors have told us that the company “sold them” on the metal hip design by promising that it was the best choice for younger and more active patients because of the stability of the materials. Unfortunately, those companies lied to the medical community and you suffered because of it.

Will everyone get the same amount in a settlement?
No. When a settlement happens there will likely be a “base value” subject to adjustments depending upon certain criteria. You will decide whether to settle your claim or not (with the advice of your attorney).

Do you guys know what you are doing?
That’s an easy one. Yes. Our metal hip team has been successfully working on metal hip cases for six years. We have represented victims of defective medical products for almost 20 years.

What is the current status?
There have been several metal hip implant cases that have reached trial. Most cases have won and some have lost. While the cases that have gone to trial are not binding upon any other cases, it is encouraging to know that juries have stood up to the greedy corporations and told them to stop hurting people in the name of profit. In addition to the trials, there have been several settlement programs for certain metal hip claims and thousands of families have already been paid compensation.

More trials are scheduled and we will be issuing regular updates to our clients about settlement programs and progress in the litigation.

Hip replacement is one of the most frequently performed surgeries in the U.S. – nearly 250,000 surgeries every year. Surgeons have gotten so good at this surgery that, for many patients, recovery time is minimal, and full motion returns to the hip in short order. It’s not the surgeons to blame for the thousands upon thousands of health complications that have been linked to hip replacement operation. Faulty devices are the problem.

Talk with an Attorney now!

Metal Hip Replacement Device Types

depuy logo

Depuy Metal On Metal Hips

Depuy Pinnacle and ASR

The Pinnacle hip replacement is a total hip replacement system designed and manufactured by DePuy, the makers of the recalled DePuy ASR metal-on-metal hip.  The design of the Pinnacle hip allows different choices of liner to place inside the outer cup (socket). The surgeon can choose between a metal liner, ceramic liner or polyethylene (plastic) liner.

The DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement system, when used with a metal liner, becomes a metal-on-metal hip device similar to the DePuy ASR and other metal-on-metal designs.  One of the recognized problems with the metal-on-metal hip design is that it places a metal femoral head (ball) against a metal acetabular cup (socket).  The metal surface of the hip ball grinds on the metal surface of the cup throughout the day when the patient is walking, running, or doing just about anything.  Over time, the friction between the two metal surfaces releases metal ions into the blood, bone, and surrounding tissues.  This can result in metallosis – high levels of the metals cobalt and chromium in the blood.

The company maintains that there is no defect in the design of the Pinnacle hip replacement, though DePuy Pinnacle lawsuits allege that the company is concealing defects and has misrepresented that the hip replacement is a safe and effective medical device.

Visit our Depuy Metal Hip page for more detailed product, lawsuit and settlement information.

Depuy Metal Hip Device Problems

• Pain in the hip and groin

• Pseudotumors

• Pinnacle hip implant failure

• Difficulty walking or standing

• Loosening of the hip device

• Metallosis (metal poisoning)

Get Help Now!

stryker logo

Stryker Rejuvante

Stryker metal hip replacement problems

In the Stryker Rejuvenate device, the “necks” are made of cobalt and chromium, and the “stems” are made of titanium-coated metal. When these metals rub against each other, tiny particles of metal can rub or flake off and enter the bloodstream.

In really bad cases, those fragments of metal can cause tissue damage, neurological damage, even blindness. Even worse than these serious health problems is the fact that Stryker knew full well that the metals in the Rejuvenate were potentially toxic – yet they didn’t see fit to tell us about it.

Visit our Stryker Metal Hip page for more detailed product, lawsuit and settlement information.

stryker logo

Stryker ABG I & II

The metals that can flake off of the Stryker ABG II are cobalt and chromium, which are safe only in the tiniest, tiniest quantities. The particles that the ABG II can release into the bloodstream may be small, but they contain far more of these potentially toxic metals than is considered safe.

Visit our Stryker Metal Hip page for more detailed product, lawsuit and settlement information.

Stryker ABG I & II Problems

• metallosis
• blindness
• hyperthyroidism
• cardiomyopathy
• deafness
• cognitive impairment

stryker logo

Stryker V40 Femoral Head

The Stryker V40 Femoral Head is a component of a hip-replacement device, not an entire device unto itself. The V40 is a metal piece that replaces the ball joint at the top of the femur, and it’s designed to work with other Stryker hip devices, such as the Accolade.

Visit our Stryker Metal Hip page for more detailed product, lawsuit and settlement information.

Stryker V40 Femoral Head Problems

• bone and tissue damage
• swelling, infection and inflammation
• necrosis (tissue death)
• osteolysis
• pseudotumors
• dizziness
• headaches
• gastrointestinal problems
• nervous system disorders
• emotional disturbance

stryker logo

Stryker Accolade Hip Replacement

In designing the Accolade hip replacement device, the decision-makers at Stryker developed and employed a proprietary titanium alloy that was supposed to reduce the likelihood of fine metal particulates being released into the blood.

It didn’t work.

Like so many other hip replacement devices, the Stryker Accolade can release tiny fragments of metal into the bloodstream. The release of potentially toxic metals into the blood has been associated with a number of significant health risks, including:

Stryker Accolade Health Risks

• bone damage
• metal poisoning
• infection
• Metallosis
• necrosis (tissue death)
• additional surgeries (“revision surgeries”)
• medical expenses
• loss of income
• pain, suffering, and mental anguish
• diminished quality of life

Stryker voluntarily recalled the Accolade hip device in 2009. The official reason was that the device did not adhere to company specifications concerning “tensile bond strength and crystallinity.”

We believe that Stryker recalled the Accolade to avoid the lawsuits that they knew were coming.

We believe that, if your health and your life have been negatively impacted by the Stryker Accolade, your best option may be to file a lawsuit against the company.

Call Us Now!

smith and newphew logo

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System

In the Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system, the top end of the femur is lopped off and replaced with a rounded metal joint; and any damaged bone and cartilage in the pelvis is ground down and replaced with a metal “cup.” Most of the femur and most of the pelvis are left intact.

But even if the femur-top replacement fits perfectly, and even if the partial pelvic replacement goes as smoothly as possible, there’s still a major problem. Both parts of the BHR system are made from potentially toxic metal that, when they rub against each other, can release tiny, toxic particles into your bloodstream.

The Smith & Nephew BHR system’s metal-on-metal design can be, in the worst cases, a death sentence. The microscopic particles of metal that the BHR system release into the bloodstream can, in fact, lead to fatalities. And even if these poisonous metals don’t kill you, they can cause.

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Problems

• metallosis
• pain
• infection and inflammation
• tissue death

In the most serious cases, the metal fragments can cause a serious disease called metallosis, or metal poisoning, which is exactly what it sounds like. Metallosis can cause tissue damage, nerve damage, blindness, and death. In our opinion, Smith & Nephew made a fatal flaw in making the components of its Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system out of toxic metals like chromium and cobalt. If you have undergone a surgical BHR system procedure, you could be at serious risk. Contact your doctor immediately.

smith and newphew logo

Smith & Nephew R-3 Hip Device

If you’ve ever used a power drill to make a hole in a block of metal, then you know exactly what goes on inside a defective hip replacement device like the Smith & Nephew R-3.

When the metal of the drill bit abrades the metal block, the resulting force produces little coils of twisted metal. That’s exactly what happens inside your body when the two metal components of a defective artificial hip rub against each other. Inside your hip joint, the coils of metal are a lot smaller than those on your workbench, and they are produced much more slowly. But the two processes are identical.

When you’re working in the shop, there’s no reason to pay much attention to those little pieces of metal debris. You brush them off of your workbench, and never think of them again.

But even though those fragments of metal inside your hip joint are small, they can cause serious, serious health problems.

The Smith & Nephew R-3 hip replacement device suffers from the same hazardous design flaw that affects many other hip replacement devices. It contains two metal parts that rub up against each other every time you move your hip. That abrasion creates metal particulate matter that then enters the bloodstream. Once it does that, the metal can cause major health problems:

Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Problems

• serious pain
• infection and inflammation
• bone deterioration
• joint dislocation
• metallosis
• headaches, dizziness, and nausea
• infection
• nervous system disorders
• gastrointestinal disorders
• loss of hearing
• blindness
• hypothyroidism
• cardiomyopathy

Hip replacement devices like the Smith & Nephew R-3 can cause more problems than they solve. And that’s not even mentioning the great expense of the “revision surgery” that’s often needed to remove and replace these faulty devices.

If you’ve been surgically implanted with a Smith & Nephew R-3 hip replacement device, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation.

Free Case Review

encore logo

Encore Metal Hip Replacement

Encore Hip Problems and Lawsuit

The attorneys at may be the only California-based defective product law firm handling Encore hip lawsuits. Why is this important? Because the company responsible for the Encore® hip system is a California-based orthopedics company. This enables us, as a California-based defective medical products law firm, to bring claims through the California Court system, against the Encore® company for the damages suffered by its victims.

Lawyers from other states that are not licensed in California may not have the experience or knowledge (or even be allowed) to handle a California lawsuit. Our managing attorney, has almost 20 years experience representing victims of defective medical products.

The safety of metal-on-metal hip devices is seriously in issue because of the tendency for metal components to rub against one another, releasing particles of metal into a patient’s tissues, bones or bloodstream.

The Encore® metal hip recall lawyers at are currently handling claims involving the Encore® hip replacement systems that included metal-on-metal design.

Encore® hip implants included both one-piece neck and stem called a ‘monoblock’ design often coupled with a cup with a metal surface. This creates metal friction every time you move. Encore® also made ‘modular’ hip stems in which the stem and neck are two pieces. Both types of Encore® hips have the potential to fail due to excessive metal debris caused by the metal-on-metal friction. In addition, hazards can be caused by metal corrosion at the modular neck junction (in the modular devices). Metal particles in the tissues is known to lead to high levels of cobalt and/or chromium in the blood, development of tumors, and painful loosening and instability of the hip device.

Visit our Encore Metal Hip page for more detailed product, lawsuit and settlement information.

Get Help Now!

zimmer logo

Zimmer Hip

The Zimmer Durom Cup is a partial hip replacement: it replaces only the portion of the pelvis that receives the “ball” joint from the top of the femur.

But even partial hip replacements can be complete and total failures.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was designed for younger, “active” people who happened to require hip replacement. Yet, in many cases, it has rendered those people less active than they were before.

Zimmer Durom Cups are notorious for failing. That’s because their manufacturer gave faulty implantation instructions to orthopedic surgeons.

The maker of the Durom Cup could not adequately convey to doctors how to install the device – but they released it onto the market, anyway.

Around 12,000 people were implanted with Zimmer Durom Cups. A great many of them have suffered from debilitating pain and a loosening of the implant. Some of them have had to undergo “revision surgery” – a corrective operation to undo the damage caused by the device.

At, we believe that negligence like this should not go unpunished, especially when people’s lives and health have been so negatively affected.

Call today for your free consultation.

Call Us Now!

wright medical logo

Wright Medical Hips

Wright Dynasty Hip

In November 2016, Wright Medical Technology – a major manufacturer of hip replacement devices – agreed to pay out $240 million to settle nearly 1300 formal lawsuits concerning its Conserve, Lineage, and Dynasty models.

That’s nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. The average settlement amounted to more than $185,000.

That staggering payout covered most of the outstanding claims against Wright Medical Technology for its dangerously defective hip replacement devices.

But it didn’t cover all of the claims. And there’s no statute of limitations on filing a lawsuit against a company for making potentially harmful devices.

If you’ve received a Wright Dynasty hip replacement device, you may be entitled to significant financial compensation. The expert attorneys at are standing by to help you.

The problem with the Wright Dynasty hip replacement is that it is made partly from potentially toxic metals. Having potentially toxic materials inside your body is a dangerous thing.

To make matters worse, the metal components of the Wright Dynasty are constantly rubbing up against one another. When this happens, tiny fragments of those toxic metals get released into the bloodstream, and can then travel throughout the body to cause all kinds of harm.

Wright Dynasty Hip Problems

• metallosis
• debilitating pain
• infection and inflammation
• blindness
• death

The $240 million that Wright Medical Technology was ordered to pay was intended to cover the cost of so-called “revision surgery” – that is, having additional surgery to remove the dangerous device that was implanted in the first surgery.

As is obvious from the $185,000 average price tag, revision surgery is expensive. It is also needless, disruptive, and not without risk. No surgical procedure is without risk.

If you have a metal-on-metal hip replacement device, you may be eligible for a similar settlement. And you owe it to yourself, your health, and your loved ones to address this potential danger right away.

Get Help Now!

wright medical logo

Wright Conserve Hip Replacements

In the opinion of the attorneys at, the Wright Conserve hip replacement device has one of the most inaccurate names of all time.

Conserve  \kən-sûrv′\ (n) : to protect from loss or harm; to preserve

For far too many people, the Wright Conserve hip replacement device has done exactly the opposite of what its name implies it will do. Rather than protecting people from further harm, the Wright Conserve has proven to be medically unsafe, and can actually leave hip replacement patients in worse shape than when they started.

What’s so unsafe about the Wright Conserve? Simply put, the components of the device that undergo the greatest movement and stress are made from potentially toxic metals. Whenever you walk, sit, or move your hip in any way, those pieces rub up against each other. That rubbing creates friction, which can dislodge from the pieces tiny fragments of metal that can then enter the bloodstream.

The release of toxic metals into the bloodstream can hardly be called “conservation.”

When released into the bloodstream, those poisonous metals can cause a condition known as metallosis, or metal poisoning. The effects of metallosis can be severe, and even fatal.

The presence of metallosis may be indicated by nothing more than soreness, redness, or fever. Soon, other, more serious symptoms – like nausea and severe pain – can present themselves. In the worst cases, the buildup of toxic metals in the bloodstream can kill.

Contact us today for a free consultation.

Call Us Now!

Metal Hip Replacement Lawsuit News & Trial Updates

• October 7, 2018

Metal Hip Implant Lawsuit News: Johnson & Johnson Pledges Assistance to Indians with Hip Implant Injuries

Pennsylvania state law claims seeking to hold drugstore chain Rite Aid liable for selling Johnson & Johnson talcum-powder products that allegedly cause cancer are nonfrivolous, the judge overseeing federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) over J&J talc declared October 3, Law360 has reported.

In a ruling that remanded the case from federal court back to state court, a move that was contested by attorneys for defendant Johnson & Johnson, Judge Freda L. Wolfson noted that retailers in Pennsylvania are subject to a standard of strict liability when it comes to selling dangerous products, meaning that the seller need not be aware of the dangerous nature of the product in order to be held responsible for the harms it causes.

The case involves allegations that plaintiff Bernadine Moore developed ovarian cancer as a result of regular, long-term use of Johnson & Johnson talcum-powder products including Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower brand products. Attorneys for Johnson & Johnson had argued that Moore had included Rite Aid—legally, a Pennsylvania resident—as a defendant in the case merely as a legal tactic aimed at having the case removed from the federal MDL taking place in New Jersey. Judge Wolfson disagreed.

"On the face of the complaint, I cannot find any indicia of fraudulent joinder for the purpose of destroying diversity," Judge Wolfson said, according to Law360, addressing J&J’s contention that Rite Aid had been included as a defendant merely to destroy the diversity jurisdiction that had landed the case in federal court. To the contrary, according to Judge Wolfson, "Plaintiff's allegations show an actual intention to proceed against Rite Aid."

In support of her ruling, Judge Wolfson cited the recent Pennsylvania state court case Kleiner v. Rite Aid, which she said involved very similar allegations against the same defendants. In that case, the court found that Rite Aid could be held liable under such claims.

The suits against Rite Aid represent the opening of a new front in the legal battle over claims that Johnson & Johnson talcum-powder products cause various forms of cancer, including ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier Imerys already have been found liable for plaintiffs’ cancer in multiple cases, including an approximately $5 billion judgment in a St. Louis Circuit Court case involving 22 plaintiffs.

Get Help Now!



• August 20, 2018

Zimmer Metal Hip Lawsuit: Plaintiff Missed filing Deadline by Just days, Case gets Tossed

In yet another example of the importance of seeking quality legal counsel as soon as you or a loved one has suffered an injury, a plaintiff bringing suit against the maker of an allegedly defective hip implant has had her case dismissed, though she missed the filing deadline by mere days.

On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, US District Judge Edward G. Smith tossed out the case of Marilyn Adams, ruling that she had failed to file her lawsuit within the two-year window that began on January 30, 2015, the time at which Adams’ doctor informed her that she would require surgery to replace the Zimmer hip implant she had received only four years prior.

Adams filed her claim against Zimmer US Inc. on February 10, 2017, less than two weeks after the deadline. In explaining his decision, Judge Smith acknowledged the severity of the law in such instances, even expressing his own personal disappointment in the conclusion he says he was compelled by law to reach.

“The court is cognizant of the harsh nature of this outcome,” he wrote, according to Law360. “The plaintiff suffered serious, life-altering injuries, and she has invested considerable time, resources, and effort into actively litigating this case. But it is the court’s duty to apply the law fairly and evenly in all cases, regardless of the court’s personal distaste for an outcome that prevents the jury from addressing the parties’ contentions in this case.”

Adams alleged that, after having a Zimmer artificial hip implanted in 2011, she suffered an accumulation of metallic toxins in the surrounding tissue. Adams testified that she was not aware of the full extent or cause of the injury until after she underwent an additional hip-replacement surgery.

Adams further claimed that she had not been aware of the diagnosis of metallosis until she was given an informed consent form on February 9, 2015. However, even if the judge had ruled this to be the beginning of the statue of limitations period, she still would have missed the deadline by a single day, resulting in the same outcome, Judge Smith noted, per Law360.

If you or a loved one suffers injury as a result of a defective medical device, make sure to contact the experienced team of attorneys at right away for a free legal consultation with an actual attorney! Don’t miss your chance at justice because you missed a filing deadline, contact right away!

Get Help Now!


• August 13, 2018

Hip Replacement Lawsuit News: NYU Study on Stryker Implants Prompts Hospital to Cease Use

In the June 2018 edition of the medical journal Arthroplasty Today, a team of researchers from New York University (NYU) looked into problems associated with hip implants designed and manufactured by Stryker Orthopaedics, examining issues relating to a higher-than-expected number of the devices that had become loose within just a few years of implantation, requiring additional surgery and replacement of the artificial hip devices.

The study’s findings have been so striking that at least one hospital recently has announced it will no longer be using that particular Stryker hip implant device on patients.

The study specifically examined the Stryker Tritanium primary cup, which has been approved for use in the United States since 2008. The researchers affirmed the findings of an earlier study “which indicated that these components appear to have a higher rate of early aseptic loosening.”

Doctors previously had attempted to address this loosening by installing secondary screws into the device, but the study found that this remedy has proven inadequate. As the study’s authors wrote, “[O]ur data has shown that additional screw fixation may not decrease the risk for implant failure.”

In conclusion, the researchers surmise that “[t]hese results suggest a need to examine the safety of the Tritanium primary cup in THA.” (THA, or Total Hip Arthroplasty, is the medical term for hip replacement surgery.)

Following the release of the study, New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital announced it no longer would be utilizing the Stryker Tritanium hip implant devices.

Researchers were prompted to look more closely at the Stryker hip implants when reported rates of the devices’ loosening exceeded the expected rate of less than 1% per year, which is based on decades of data across numerous hip-implant devices.

Now that the data has been released publicly, it remains to be seen whether more hospitals will follow suit and discontinue use of the Stryker Tritanium devices. It also provides more evidence to support potential product-liability lawsuits against the device maker.

Stay tuned to for the latest updates on defective medical devices and dangerous prescription drugs! And if you or a loved one is ever injured by a defective medical product, remember to call the experienced team of attorneys at right away for a free legal consultation!

Get Help Now!

Arthroplasty Today

• June 22, 2018

Hip Lawsuit News: Smith & Nephew Asks Judge to Toss Hip Implant Cases Over Statute of Limitations

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018, medical-device maker Smith & Nephew PLC requested that a Maryland federal court toss out over one quarter of the remaining cases in multidistrict litigation (MDL) over the company’s Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR). Smith & Nephew asked the court to dismiss 55 of the approximately 200 remaining lawsuits on the basis that they are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Plaintiffs in the MDL allege that the BHR was improperly designed and that Smith & Nephew dragged its feet in providing negative information about the device—including hundreds of complaints and adverse event reports, as well as evidence that the device was wearing down faster than anticipated—to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as the company was required to do by law.

Similar to allegations involving other brands of metal-on-metal hip implants, plaintiffs claim that when metal parts inside the BHR rub against one another, it allows metal particles to leach into the bloodstream. Over time, this can result in a variety of serious medical conditions.

On the same day that the company filed its request to have the 55 cases dismissed, US District Court Judge Catherine Blake issued several discovery orders, including one aimed at better explaining a March 26 ruling in which she approved the dismissal of several of the plaintiffs’ state law claims, finding that they were preempted by federal law.

Among the state law claims dismissed under the March 26 ruling were plaintiffs’ strict liability claims, claims that the company was required to update its warning label or otherwise warn patients, and claims involving the company’s misrepresenting the product as safe and effective.

However, on June 21, Judge Blake clarified that she had not dismissed all of plaintiffs’ state law claims. Those that remain intact include state law claims of negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective hip implant, contact the experienced team of attorneys at now for a free consultation. As this update shows, the law places strict time limits on your ability to file a claim, and companies will use that to their advantage. Don’t lose out because you waited too long! Contact us today!

Get Help Now!


• May 2, 2018

Hip Lawsuit News: California Appeals Court Reverses $9 Million in Hip Implant Damages

In yet another striking example of the importance of quality, experienced legal representation, a California state court of appeals has reversed a $9-million trial-court verdict, saying the plaintiff’s attorney made certain inappropriately prejudicial statements before the jury, potentially resulting in the awarding of excessive damages. However, the appellate court stopped short of requiring a new trial on the plaintiff’s liability claims, which relate to the Durom Cup hip implant manufactured by lower-court defendant Zimmer Inc.

In its decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that a new trial on damages was required after an attorney for plaintiff Gary Kline made factual misstatements before the jury pertaining to the value of Zimmer and the medical device industry as a whole and the cost of Mr. Kline’s medical expenses, while also making casual reference to a recall of another Zimmer device and suggesting to the jury that Durom Cup may have been taken off the market.

The majority also made clear that any potential prejudicial impact had been limited to the damages portion of the trial, upholding the jury’s findings that the Durom cup implant was negligently designed, that it caused harm to the plaintiff, and that Zimmer had failed to warn the plaintiff of the potential risks.

“Kline’s counsel’s misconduct was not so pervasive nor so egregious that it prevented the jury from rationally considering the evidence admitted at trial,” the appellate panel wrote, according to Law360.

The jury originally awarded the plaintiff $153,317 in past medical expenses, $2.4 million for past noneconomic losses, and $6.6 million for future noneconomic losses, totaling approximately $9 million.

The appellate court order the new trial on damages on the basis of “irregularities”—the conduct of the plaintiff’s attorney—and excessive noneconomic damages.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective hip implant, the experienced team of attorneys at is standing by now for a free legal consultation. The law places strict deadlines on your ability to file a claim, so don’t delay!

Get Help Now!


• March 29, 2018

State Law Claims Against Hip Implant Maker Not Barred By Federal Law

In a victory for plaintiffs suing medical device maker Smith & Nephew PLC in multidistrict litigation (MDL) over alleged problems with the company’s metal-on-metal hip implants, a Maryland federal judge ruled that most of the plaintiffs’ Maryland state law claims were not preempted by federal law, as attorneys for the defendant device maker had argued. In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Catherine Blake found that the plaintiffs’ state law negligence claims could proceed because they run parallel to—rather than being preempted by—related federal law.

Defendant Smith & Nephew had argued that plaintiffs’ negligence claims—in addition to claims of strict product liability and manufacturing defects—should all be dismissed, largely on the basis that these state law claims were preempted by federal law and regulation, specifically the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. However, Judge Blake found that federal regulation under the Act required the defendant company to provide truthful and accurate information about its product, to report adverse events to the appropriate authorities, and to appropriately educate surgeons on installation of the product, all of which mirror elements of plaintiffs’ state law negligence claims.

In approximately 200 lawsuits emanating from over 40 states, plaintiffs in the MDL allege—among other claims surviving Judge Blake’s ruling—negligence, failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation on the part of Smith & Nephew with regards to its Birmingham Hip Resurfacing device.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has designated that Birmingham Hip Resurfacing device as Class III, meaning the agency considers the device to be “high risk”. Additionally, two recalls have been issued for the device. In 2007, a recall was conducted over labeling issues, and a second took place in 2015 as the risks inherent in metal-on-metal hip implants became more apparent, and competitors began to conduct similar recalls.

Research shows that, once implanted, metal-on-metal hip implants are subject to regular friction that, over time, can release metal ions and other metallic debris into the bloodstream, which can result in metal poisoning and other negative health impacts.

According to plaintiffs, Smith & Nephew continued to vouch for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing device’s efficacy and safety even as evidence to contrary continued to mount.

The judge sided with the defendant device maker in tossing out the plaintiffs’ claims of strict product liability—saying that these claims were indeed barred by federal law—and manufacturing defects.

Get Help Now!


• March 5, 2018

NJ Court Allows Zimmer Hip Suit to Proceed

On February 26, a federal district court in New Jersey delivered a victory to plaintiffs seeking to hold defendant medical-device maker Zimmer Inc. accountable for alleged defects to one of its hip implants, rejecting Zimmer’s bid to have the case dismissed in its entirety. The Court ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims would be allowed to proceed, dismissing only one claim out of five. The remaining four claims are now expected to proceed to a trial on the merits.

In January 2006, Matthew Cerniglia underwent a procedure to have implanted a Zimmer-made artificial hip device that included a femoral stem. The device was installed in the area of his left hip and femur. Approximately a decade later, Matthew began to feel pain emanating from the area where the Zimmer device had been implanted. The pain was so great that Matthew sought medical attention, and it was revealed that the device had broken within him, and, in doing so, it had leaked the dangerous metals chromium and cobalt into his bloodstream. In order to remedy the situation, Matthew was forced to undergo at least two additional surgeries, including a total hip replacement in 2016.

In allowing the claims of Matthew and his wife Robin Cerniglia to proceed, U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton ruled that plaintiffs had demonstrated a sufficient basis to proceed with claims under New Jersey’s Product Liability Act (PLA), claims which include failure to adhere to quality controls, design defect and manufacturing defect, failure to warn and instruct, and a claim for punitive damages. The judge sided with defendant Zimmer in dismissing a fifth claim relating to breach of express warranty, which would require affirmative statements and/or promises made by the defendant, a threshold that was not met by plaintiffs, according to the Court.

The case is just one of many ongoing across the country in which plaintiffs are seeking to hold medical-device makers accountable for their faulty hip implants. If you or a loved one has suffered injury as a result of an artificial hip implant device, contact the team of expert attorneys at now for a free consultation.

Get Help Now!


• October 4, 2017
dea logo

Johnson & Johnson Petitions for Stay in Defective Hip Device lawSuit

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics have petitioned the First Circuit Court to stay its decision in a case involving the companies’ allegedly defective hip replacement devices. The suit has been filed under the False Claims Act, and concerns claims that the metal-on-metal construction of the companies’ hip replacement devices poses serious medical hazards.

The companies seek a 90-day stay as they prepare their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The grounds on which they have requested the delay are that, they allege, circuit courts have varying standards for issuing rulings in False Claims Act cases.

Earlier this week, the First Circuit Court denied the companies’ petition for a rehearing, thereby permitting whistleblowers Antoni Nargol and David Langton to submit, as intended, their claims that the two companies indirectly caused physicians to submit false claims to the government.

The crux of Nargol’s and Langton’s argument is that the metal-on-metal construction of the companies’ various hip replacement devices constitutes a manufacturing defect, yet their manufacturers nevertheless made direct claims for the device to federal and state government agencies, thereby indirectly causing healthcare providers to submit false claims. The suit had been tossed last year, but was revived in July by a panel of the First Circuit Court.

In metal-on-metal hip devices, metal parts can grind against other parts, thereby potentially releasing particles of cobalt and/or chromium – two toxic metals – into the bloodstream. Those fragments of metal can cause a toxic condition called metallosis, which can damage organs and can even cause death.

The case is ongoing; more developments are expected soon.

• September 13, 2017

Trial Could Open Door To Flimsy Hip Implant Lawsuits

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary DePuy Orthopaedics, which manufactures many of the most prominent and allegedly defect-riddled hip replacement devices, have urged a panel of the First Circuit Court to reconsider its partial revival of a suit that alleges that the companies submitted to the government false claims for faulty hip replacement products.

The companies made the request on the grounds that, according to the companies, the plaintiffs who filed the charges of misconduct in the original 2014 suit have not provided evidence of any specific false claims. The companies stated that granting a trial on an allegedly thin basis such as this would open the doors to a host of lawsuits that, in the companies’ opinions, would be flimsy.

The plaintiffs in the original suit alleged that the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement device, which is notable for having the metal-on-metal construction that has been the source of many allegations of health complications, possessed a manufacturing defect, yet, the suit alleges, Johnson & Johnson and DePuy nevertheless submitted direct claims for the device to federal and state government agencies, an action that indirectly encouraged health care providers to submit false claims for the devices.

The suit was dismissed last year, but the First Circuit Court revived the portion of the suit concerning the indirect false claims submitted by health care providers.

DePuy and its parent company continue to insist that the plaintiffs have not submitted evidence of the alleged indirect false claims under current legal precedent.

The complex case is proceeding in New York.

If you’ve been injured by a defective metal-on-metal hip replacement device such as the DePuy Pinnacle, you may wish to file a lawsuit or join an existing suit against DePuy and Johnson & Johnson.

At, we believe that your health is more important than corporate profits. We’d be proud to represent you in court.

Call Us Now!

• July 27, 2017

Veteran Sues VA for $11 Million over Botched Hip Replacement Surgery

A Florida veteran has sued a VA hospital in Miami for $11 million over an allegedly botched hip replacement surgery that has left him with a disfigurement that caused him pain.

Rafael Tejeda alleges that surgeons at the Bruce W. Carter Veterans Affairs Medical Center performed a hip replacement surgery that left him with two legs of substantially different lengths. The error, Tejeda alleges, is painful, requires him to walk with crutches, and has cost him his job as a waiter. The complaint states that Tejeda’s ability to walk has been “severely limited.”

The plaintiff alleges that his surgeons failed to properly measure his legs, failed to properly cut and adjust the hip replacement device, and inserted the prosthesis incorrectly. The result, he alleges, is a condition called Trendelenburg gait, which is associated with muscle damage and back pain.

The case is ongoing in a Florida court.

If you’ve been surgically implanted with a defective hip replacement device, or if you believe your doctors have implanted any surgical device improperly, you may have a case. Contact to learn how we can help you.

• July 24, 2017

Hip Replacement Suit Revived in Maryland

An appeals court in Maryland has revived a lawsuit concerning a botched hip replacement surgery, stating that questions remained about the potential negligence of the surgeon who performed the operation.

The suit, filed by Deborah Sigethy, alleges that Dr. Bryan Klepper had misplaced a component of the artificial hip that she received in a surgical operation in 2010. The improperly implanted part resulted, Sigethy alleges, in pain and a need for further surgeries.

Sigethy learned from another doctor that she required additional surgeries, and the appeals court ruled that she may not have been aware that those additional surgeries were required because of the device. It is reasonable, the court opined, that Sigethy believed that the additional pain was due to complications involved her own body, not necessarily to any errors committed by Dr. Klepper.

Sigethy had been subject to a three-year window in which she was entitled to file a lawsuit about the improperly implanted device. She argued that the window should have opened only on January 7, 2011, when her insurer first notified her about the recall of a component of the hip replacement that she had.

The “acetabular cap” on Sigethy’s hip replacement – the piece that replaces the top of the ball joint on the femur – was the part under recall.

Call Us Now!

Lawsuit Verdicts and settlements

Wright Medical Adds $90 Million to Defective Hip Device Settlement

October 6, 2017
Wright Medical, the Amsterdam-based medical device manufacturer of numerous hip replacement devices alleged to be dangerously defective, has agreed to add a maximum of $89.8 million to the settlement fund from which it plans to settle claims that the hip devices’ metal-on-metal construction has led to serious medical complications.

The funds will be added to Wright’s existing $240 million settlement fund in several chunks, or tranches, over the next several months. The first tranche, of $7.9 million, will be used to settle 49 further claims against the devices. The second tranche, of $5.1 million, will be used to settle 39 further claims. The third and largest tranche, of $76.75 million, will be used to fund any remaining claims and any new claims made about the allegedly defective devices.

According to the company, it currently has about 629 pending claims and 710 eligible claims concerning its hip replacement devices.

The metal-on-metal construction of most hip replacement devices has been linked to their large-scale failure. When metal parts grind against other metal parts, tiny fragments of metal can be released into the bloodstream, where those fragments can travel all around to body to cause inflammation, infection, pain, and organ damage. The most serious consequence of this toxic condition, which is called metallosis, is death.

If you’ve had hip replacement surgery, and have experienced pain, inflammation, and/or other conditions related to your device’s metal-on-metal construction, you may be entitled to financial compensation. To learn more about filing a hip replacement lawsuit, contact the expert attorneys at The consultation is free.

Call Us Now!

“Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Systems.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Hip Replacement.” National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM) MedlinePlus.

“Osteoarthritis.” National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM) MedlinePlus

“Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Systems.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Hip Implants.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Hospitalization for Total Hip Replacement Among Inpatients Aged 45 and Over: United States, 2000-2010.” NCHS Data Brief No. 186. February 2015. Accessed at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of Adverse Reactions and Patient Management.” Journal of Functional Biomaterials. September 2016. Accessed at National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

“Concerns about Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.” US Food and Drug Administration.

“Metal-on-metal hip replacement implants: Information for general practitioners, orthopaedic surgeons, and other health professionals.” Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). September 20, 2012

“Information for Patients Who Have Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.” United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Not dated, accessed September 16, 2018

“Opinion on The safety of Metal-on-Metal joint replacements with a particular focus on hip implants.” European Union Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). Adopted at the 7th plenary of September 24-25, 2014

“Information for Patients Who Have Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.” United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Not dated, accessed September 16, 2018

“Public Communication – Health Canada Issued Important Safety Information on Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.” Health Canada. May 9, 2012

“All metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements: updated advice for follow-up of patients.” Medical Device Alert. MDA/2017/018. United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

“Information for Patients Who Have Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.” United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Not dated, accessed September 16, 2018

“Public Communication – Health Canada Issued Important Safety Information on Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants.” Health Canada. May 9, 2012

“All metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements: updated advice for follow-up of patients.” Medical Device Alert. MDA/2017/018. United Kingdom Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)

“Hip Implants.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Hip Implants.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Systems.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: FDA Activities.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Last updated February 4, 2018

“Class 2 Device Recall DEPUY ASR ACETABULAR CUP.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Date posted March 24, 2011

“Class 2 Device Recall Rejuvenate Modular Stems.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Date posted July 26, 2012

“Class 2 Device Recall ABG II Modular Hip Stem.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Date posted July 26, 2012

“Medical Device Recalls.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

“Class 2 Device Recall Modular REDAPT™ Hip Systems.” US Food and Drug Administration. Date created January 4, 2017

“Class 2 Device Recall CONSERVE, TOTAL ACLASS Femoral Head.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Created June 25, 2015

“Class 2 Device Recall Profemur R, Revision Hip system, Proximal Body (part).” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Date posted June 7, 2007

“Class 2 Device Recall Durom cup.” US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Date posted September 26, 2008

IN RE: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. MDL 2197. United States District Court for the Norhern District of Ohio

IN RE: DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation. MDL 3:11-md-02244. United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

“Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2441.” MDL No. 2441. United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

“In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2775).” MDL No. 2775. United States District Court for the District of Maryland

“2 New Agreements Settle Remaining Wright Hip Cases; Judge Closes MDL.” Lexis Legal News. November 1, 2017

“Case Management Order Regarding Settlement Agreement.” In re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Products Liability Litigation. United States District Court District of New Jersey. MDL-2158. Filed May 13, 2016

“Durom Acetabular Component (“Durom Cup”) Settlement Program.”

Free Case Review