Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit
07/30/2012 Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit Info: The Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit would potentially involve those who were implanted with a faulty Biomet Metal-on-Metal hip replacement. If you have undergone hip surgery, only to realize you will require further revision surgeries, you may be considering a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. The best advice to seek before entering into a Biomet Hip Lawsuit is that of a Biomet Hip Lawyer. Contact Best Legal Source for up-to-date information regarding the Biomet Hip Lawsuit.
Necessary Information for Prospective Plaintiffs in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit
Biomet Hip Lawyer groups are looking specifically into cases for patients with Metal-on-Metal (MoM) Biomet Hip Systems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration site can help you determine if a safety communication or warning exists for your MoM device. Best Legal Source can then assist you by finding a qualified Biomet Hip Lawyer to handle your Biomet Hip Lawsuit. One call to Best Legal Source can make the daunting task of pursuing a Biomet Hip Lawsuit much easier. We will explain the parameters of a Biomet Hip Lawsuit and explain the advantages between Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit cases and MDL suits.
Most important to many consumers is the financial aspect. A Biomet Hip Lawsuit could result in compensation for your potential revision surgery, past medical bills and pain and suffering. The assistance of Best Legal Source is free and the Biomet Hip Lawyer will work on your case at no upfront cost. Once the lawsuit is won, the Biomet Hip Lawyer will be paid a percentage of the compensation. If the case is not won in your favor, you will not owe any expenses. There is no reason to wait—call Best Legal Source today at (800) 611-7080!
Should I pursue a Biomet Hip Lawsuit or a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit?
Ultimately, the decision to pursue a Biomet Hip Lawsuit or a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit should be decided based upon advice from your Biomet Hip Lawyer and the details of your situation. It can be advantageous to join a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit based on finances and efficiency. It is up to the court to decide whether a Biomet Hip Lawsuit will be culminated into either a Biomet Hip Lawsuit Multi District Litigation (MDL) or a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. As the differences are primarily necessary knowledge for your legal representative, we will refer to any kind of joint Biomet Hip Lawsuit as a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit.
Directions on Contacting a Biomet Hip Lawyer
It is not easy to find the right attorney for your Biomet Hip Lawsuit among the pool of law firms who claim to be qualified. Let Best Legal Source use their knowledge and experience to screen the available pool and find the best Biomet Hip Lawyer for your Biomet Hip Lawsuit. Take action now by calling our representatives at (800) 611-7080.
Sample of a Biomet Hip Lawsuit Filing
For the remainder of the article, we will present an excerpt of a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. You will have the remainder of this site to view an actual Biomet Hip Lawsuit document. The notes and headings below were written by a representative at Best Legal Source and not a lawyer. No content on our site should be taken as legal opinion or legal advice.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit in Excerpt Form Starts
2012 WL 2927078 (E.D.N.C.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina,
Northern Division.
Mary P. JENKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, Biomet, Inc. & Biomet, LLC, Defendants.
No. 2:12-cv-00042.
July 6, 2012.
Jury Trial Demanded
This is a product liability case involving a defective hip implant system. Plaintiff Mary Jenkins had a Biomet M2a Magnum Metal-on-Metal Hip System (“M2a Magnum Hip System”) implanted in her hip. The M2a Magnum Hip System is defective because excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium corrode and wear from the surfaces of the acetabular cup, the femoral head, and the taper sleeve. The excessive wear in turn causes the hip implant to fail and the surrounding tissue and bone to die. As a result of these defects, Ms. Jenkins’ M2a Magnum Hip System failed in her body, causing toxic levels of cobalt and chromium, tissue and bone destruction, and the need for Ms. Jenkins to undergo a complicated and risky surgery to remove and replace the defective implant.
Mary Jenkins Biomet Hip Lawsuit Introduction
Often in a Biomet Hip Lawsuit, the beginning of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit document will explain the parties involved including the Biomet Hip Lawsuit plaintiff and the Biomet Hip Lawsuit defendant. The Biomet Hip Lawyer information is also listed at this juncture; however, we have omitted this information. A short summary of the parties involved in this Biomet Hip Lawsuit is listed below.
Parties in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit from North Carolina
Plaintiff Mary P. Jenkins is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of North Carolina. Mrs. Jenkins’ home address is 1100 Washington Street, Roanoke Rapids, Northampton County, North Carolina..
On information and belief, Defendant Biomet Orthopedics, LLC is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Indiana with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold the M2a Magnum Hip system that is the subject of this lawsuit. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC does not maintain a principal local office in North Carolina, but can be served at 56 East Bell Drive, P.O. Box 587, Warsaw, Indiana 46581-0587.
On information and belief, Defendant Biomet, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Indiana with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. Biomet, Inc. designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold the M2a Magnum Hip system that is the subject of this lawsuit. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet LLC are collectively referred to herein as “Biomet.”
Facts of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit Are Listed
The basics of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit will be displayed next as the Biomet Hip Lawsuit trial document outlines summaries of the happenings in the specific case of Mary Jenkins. In the following paragraphs, you will get a better understanding of the background of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit background and origin.
Factual Background for Biomet Hip Lawsuit Magnum Hip System
The M2a Magnum Hip System Is Defective And Was Not Adequately Tested
The hip joint is where the femur connects to the pelvis. The joint is made up of the femoral head (a ball-like structure at the very top of the femur) rotating within the acetabulum (a cup-like structure at the bottom of the pelvis.) In a healthy hip, both the femur and the acetabulum are strong and the rotation of the bones against each other is cushioned and lubricated by cartilage and fluids.
The M2a Magnum Hip System suffers from a design or manufacturing defect that cause excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium to wear and corrode from the surface of the acetabular cup, from the femoral head, and from the taper adapter. These cobalt and chromium fragments prompt the body to react by rejecting the hip implant. This rejection often manifests with symptoms of pain, looseness, dislocation, and squeaking and popping sounds. Inside the hip joint, the metal reaction often causes fluids to accumulate and soft tissues and bone to die.
The design of the M2a Magnum Hip System was not sufficiently tested by Biomet, and it was never approved by the FDA as being safe or effective for the products’ intended purpose.
Details of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit Document’s Device Description
The factual statements in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit may seem overly descriptive, but these details are needed to make a point about the faulty issues Ms. Jenkins experienced when using this device. The Metal-on-Metal seems to create an added complication and health risk for those filing Biomet Hip Lawsuit claims. If you are interested in learning more about the Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit or would like to begin conversations with a Biomet Hip Lawyer, you can contact Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit Defendants’ Alleged Faults
Biomet Sold the M2a Magnum Hip Implant To Ms. Jenkins After It Knew It Was Defective, That It Had Injured Others, And That It Would Injure Her.
It was not long after Biomet launched the M2a Magnum Hip System that reports of failures began flooding into Biomet. For example, in August 2004, Biomet received a complaint that a patient had to undergo a surgery to remove and replace an M2a Magnum Hip System because it had become loose after only three years. Biomet closed its investigation of this complaint.
Biomet would go on to receive hundreds of similar complaints reporting that the M2a Magnum Hip System had failed and that the failure had forced patients to undergo painful and risky surgeries to remove and replace the failed hip component. To date, more than 350 reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum Hip System have been filed with the FDA.
By the time Biomet sold the M2a Magnum Hip System to Plaintiff, numerous reports had been filed with the FDA reporting an adverse event associated with the M2a Magnum Hip System. Consequently, Biomet was fully aware that the M2a Magnum Hip System was defective and that dozens of patients already had been injured by that defect. Based on this information, Biomet should have recalled the M2a Magnum Hip System before it was sold to Ms. Jenkins. At minimum, Biomet should have stopped selling the defective implant when it became aware that it had catastrophically failed in several patients.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit Term Explained by Best Legal Source
It must be noted within this Biomet Hip Lawsuit excerpt that Best Legal Source is not the maker of any Biomet products or any medical device in general. We use terms like Biomet Hip Lawsuit, Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit and Biomet Hip Lawyer simply to describe the product and legal terms associated with the product at this time. Our goal is to connect victims with Biomet Hip Lawyer groups who can best handle their Biomet Hip Lawsuit cases.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit of Ms. Jenkins Continues
Despite its knowledge that the M2a Magnum Hip System had a defect and that it had failed hundreds of times, causing hundreds of patients to undergo the agony of another surgery, Biomet continues to sell the defective M2a Magnum Hip System. In so doing, Biomet actively concealed the known defect from doctors and patients-including Ms. Jenkins and her doctor-and misrepresented that that the M2a Magnum Hip System was a safe and effective medical device.
Biomet’s reason to conceal the defect in its M2a Magnum Hip System is clear. Hip implant sales are critically important to Biomet, and the M2a Magnum is one of its most profitable products. During the time period relevant to this Complaint, Biomet’s management was trying to make Biomet look appealing to investors, and they ultimately were purchased by a private equity firm in 2007 for $10 billion. Biomet was faced with a critical defect in one of its most profitable hip implant systems. The last thing Biomet wanted to do was to admit that these popular products had a critical defect that could cause a premature failure, forcing patients to have to undergo another painful surgery. Focused on corporate profits, and at the expense of patient safety, Biomet decided that it would continue to promote, market, and sell the M2a Magnum Hip System despite the fact that it knew the product was defective. To this day, Biomet continue to sell these defective implants to unsuspecting patients without any warning about the risks or the failures that have been reported to the company.
Failure of Ms. Jenkins’ M2a Device Leads to Biomet Hip Lawsuit
A device failure can be devastating and is often the reason consumers pursue a Biomet Hip Lawsuit. The number of consumers affected may provoke a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit. In addition to the pain experienced through the first surgery, a defective device can create the need for a second (more complex) revision surgery. Detailed below is Ms. Jenkins experience with this in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit document.
Specifics of Ms. Jenkins’ Suffering in the Biomet Hip Lawsuit Document
Ms. Jenkins’ M2a Magnum Hip System Was Defective And Failed, Forcing Her To Undergo An Additional Painful And Risky Surgery.
On or about August 11, 2008, Plaintiff underwent a right hip replacement surgery in Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina, during which a Biomet metal-on-metal Magnum prosthesis was implanted in her body. Post-surgical imaging revealed good placement of the device. By this time, numerous reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum had been filed with the FDA and Biomet knew that the product was defective. But Biomet failed to disclose that information to Ms. Jenkins, her physicians, or the public. Upon information and belief, Biomet misrepresented to Ms. Jenkins and her orthopedic surgeon through its sales representatives that the M2a Magnum Hip System was safe and effective. In reliance on these representations, Ms. Jenkins’ orthopedic surgeon made the decision to use the M2a Magnum Hip System. If it were not for the misrepresentations made by Biomet, Ms. Jenkins’ orthopedic surgeon would not have used the M2a Magnum Hip System in Ms. Jenkins’ hip replacement surgery.
Within 18 months after her surgery, Plaintiff began experiencing pain in her right hip.
By 2010, the pain had become severe and she developed a large fluid collection. An aspiration of the fluid provided findings consistent with a metal on metal reaction.
Upon the advice of her physician, Mrs. Jenkins agreed to have her metal-on-metal prosthesis removed and replaced using a prosthesis using polyethylene cup.
On July 9, 2010, Plaintiff underwent a complex, risky, and painful surgery (known as a “revision surgery”) to remove the failed M2a Magnum Hip System from her body. Revision surgeries are generally more complex than the original hip replacement surgery, often because there is a reduced amount of bone in which to place the new hip implants. Revision surgeries also usually take longer than the original hip replacement surgery and the revision surgery has a higher rate of complications. Post-surgical pathology reports indicated that the acetabular head and lining were surrounded by fibroconnective tissue and bone with necrosis, granulation, acute and chronic inflammation. During the surgery, metalosis fluid was found in Plaintiff’s joint.
As a result of the defective design, manufacture and composition of the M2a Magnum Hip System, and its accompanying warnings and instructions (or lack thereof), Ms. Jenkins’ hip implant failed, causing her severe pain.
Closing Portion of Biomet Hip Lawsuit Document
Biomet Hip Lawsuit sample section is nearing the end. You can view the entire Biomet Hip Lawsuit document by searching public records. In addition, you can view other Biomet Hip Lawsuit cases and Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit cases by viewing other Best Legal Source pages. We had no affiliation with the Biomet Hip Lawsuit provided here.
Final Paragraphs of Biomet Hip Lawsuit Excerpt
Having to go through a revision surgery has subjected Ms. Jenkins to much greater risks of future complications than she had before the revision surgery. For example, several studies have found that a revision surgery causes a much higher risk of dislocation compared with an original hip replacement surgery. In one study conducted by Charlotte Phillips and her colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, 14.4 percent of patients who underwent a revision surgery suffered from a dislocation compared with 3.9 percent of patients who underwent a original hip replacement surgery. In other words, hip replacement patients who have undergone a revision surgery are almost four times more likely to suffer from a hip dislocation than those who have not. (Phillips CB, et al. Incidence rates of dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and deep infection during the first six months after elective total hip replacement. American Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 2003; 85:20-26.)
As a direct and proximate result of the failure of her defective M2a Magnum Hip System and Biomet’s wrongful conduct, Ms. Jenkins sustained and continues to suffer economic damages (including medical and hospital expenses), severe and possibly permanent injuries, pain, suffering and emotional distress. As a result, Ms. Jenkins has sustained and will continue to sustain damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but which will far exceed $75,000 jurisdictional minimum of this court.
Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was done with actual malice, that is, evil motive, intent to injure, ill will and/or fraud. Defendants risked the lives of consumers and users of their products, including the Plaintiff, with knowledge of the safety and efficacy problems and suppressed this knowledge from the general public. Defendants by and through their officers and manager made conscious decisions not to redesign, re-Label, warn or inform the unsuspecting consuming public, all to the detriment of the purchasers of the product, generally, and Mary Jenkins, in particular.
End of Biomet Hip Lawsuit
Final Words on Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit Filings
In closing, if you would like to file a Biomet Hip Lawsuit or join an existing Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit, Best Legal Source can make this a reality for you. Biomet Hip Lawyer groups are looking into cases for those with defective Metal-on-Metal devices which have necessitated a revision surgery for the patient. Call today to begin the Biomet Hip Lawsuit process—(800) 611-7080.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit Resource page:
