08/09/2012 Biomet Hip Lawyer: This page is dedicated to assisting victims of defective Biomet hip systems in finding a Biomet Hip Lawyer for potential Biomet Hip Lawsuit cases. Those looking for an experienced and professional Biomet Hip Lawyer should contact Best Legal Source for access to screened, qualified Biomet Hip Lawyer groups. Best Legal Source can be reached (800) 611-7080.
Reaching Out to a Biomet Hip Lawyer
It can be complicated to find the right Biomet Hip Lawyer for your Biomet Hip Lawsuit. Fortunately, you have the opportunity to have a trusted resource with years of legal knowledge on your side. Best Legal Source has the experience necessary to screen available Biomet Hip Lawyer groups and determine which will fight hard for your best interests in your potential Biomet Hip Lawsuit. Contact us directly at (800) 611-7080 to begin the process of filing a Biomet Hip Lawsuit.
Biomet Hip Lawyer Procedures from Best Legal Source
The first step in joining a Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit or filing an individual Biomet Hip Lawsuit is finding the right Biomet Hip Lawyer to represent you against the large medical device company. The Biomet Hip Lawsuit is not identical to any other lawsuit and may not be best handled by just any personal injury lawyer. A Biomet Hip Lawyer is one with experience in pharmaceutical litigation and knowledge of the specific facts pertaining to the Biomet Hip Lawsuit.
Best Legal Source can be a beneficial ally when making the choice of which Biomet Hip Lawyer to use. We screen qualified Biomet Hip Lawyer groups and connect you with one who is fair and will deliver the best available assistance in your potential Biomet Hip Lawsuit.
Biomet Hip Lawyer Research
A Biomet Hip Lawyer must be armed with all current research concerning the Biomet Hip Lawsuit. For instance, a Biomet Hip Lawyer is up-to-date on all the below facts. It assists them as they write and file a Biomet Hip Lawsuit trial court document.
Biomet Hip Systems, specifically the Biomet M2A-Magnum hip device, have caused issues for many of those implanted with the device. The Metal-on-Metal (MoM) hip systems may cause pain, difficulty walking, premature loosening and wear issues. The typical Biomet Hip Lawsuit is filed due to these issues and for complications due to metal wearing and flaking into the blood stream. In 2001, a Biomet Hip Recall concerning the ball part of their hip device, led others to pursue Biomet Hip Lawyer help.
Biomet Hip Lawyer and Best Legal Source Affiliation
Best Legal Source uses the phrases Biomet Hip Lawsuit, Biomet Hip Lawyer and Biomet Hip Class Action Lawsuit as descriptors. We do not intend to imply ownership or a relationship with the manufacturers of the Biomet Hip medical device. Best Legal Source has no association with makers of any medical device or drug. Our goal is to connect victims with qualified attorneys such as the Biomet Hip Lawyer.
Closing Call for Action: Biomet Hip Lawyer
It’s time to take action if you have been enduring pain due to a defective hip device. A Biomet Hip Lawsuit may result in compensation to cover the cost of your past implant surgery and future revision surgery. Contact Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080 with any questions you may have. We are happy to help you discover all the legal options available to you including Biomet Hip Lawyer groups.
More Resources for Biomet Hip Lawyer Understanding
The addition of a Biomet Hip Lawsuit follows below. Best Legal Source inserted some content within the lawsuit that is clearly delineated through the heading sections. No content from Best Legal Source should be taken as legal advice since it was not written by a lawyer. For Biomet Hip Lawyer knowledge, read the Biomet Hip Lawsuit excerpt below.
California Biomet Hip Lawsuit Excerpt Starts
2012 WL 3040607 (N.D.Cal.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Delores CLARK, Plaintiffs,
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet, LLC, and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants.
No. CV 12 3740 JCS.
July 17, 2012.
Jury Trial Demanded
Complaint for: (1) Strict Product Liability, (2) Negligence, (3) Breach of Implied Warranties, (4) Breach of Express Warranty
This is a product liability case involving a defective hip implant system. Plaintiff DELORES CLARK had a Biomet M2a Magnum Metal-on-Metal Hip System (“M2a Magnum Hip System”) implanted in her left hip. The M2a Magnum Hip System suffers from defects that cause excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium to corrode and wear from the surfaces of the acetabular cup, the femoral head, and the taper sleeve, which in turn causes the hip implant to fail and the surrounding tissue and bone to die. As a result of these defects, Ms. Clark’s M2a Magnum Hip System failed in her body, causing toxic levels of cobalt and chromium, tissue and bone destruction, and the need for Ms. Clark to undergo a complicated and risky surgery to remove and replace the defective implant.
Winchester, VA Biomet Hip Lawsuit Plaintiff
Details regarding the Biomet Hip Lawsuit plaintiff, Delores Clark, are given in the beginning portion of the Biomet Hip Lawsuit. The Biomet Hip Lawyer information was omitted due to rights and privacy. Best Legal Source was not involved with the Biomet Hip Lawyer or Biomet Hip Lawsuit provided here. It was obtained through public record sources.
Party Information of Biomet Hip Lawsuit and Defects
Plaintiff DELORES CLARK is currently a citizen of the State of Virginia and resides in Winchester, Virginia.
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. Clark and her doctor-and misrepresented that that the M2a Magnum Hip System was a safe and effective medical device.
As numerous failures of the M2a Magnum Hip Implant were reported to Biomet, it continued to actively promote, market and defend the defective products. For example, Biomet published marketing brochures touting the safety and durability of metal-on-metal implants and specifically, the M2a Magnum Hip System. These brochures were given to doctors around the world, including Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon, to encourage them to use the M2a Magnum Hip System.
Despite its knowledge that the M2a Magnum Hip System was defective, Biomet also made several false representations about specific design elements of the M2a Magnum Hip System that they claimed made it superior to other more safe hip implants on the market. For example, Biomet said:
• “The M2a-MagnumTM Large Metal Articulation System offers optimal joint mechanic restoration and ultra low-wear rates in vivo.”
• Many studies conducted over the last several decades have shown no definitive correlation of negative health issues to ion levels exhibited from metal-on-metal implants.”
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 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 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.
Biomet Hip Lawsuit of Ms. Clark: Risks
The above excerpt from the Biomet Hip Lawyer demonstrates the risk present in the Biomet Hip system. The Biomet Hip Lawsuit defendant was responsible for delivering a product and making the public aware of its risks. The Biomet Hip Lawsuit defendant is charged with knowing of defects and concealing them.
Ms. Clark’s M2a Magnum Hip System Was Defective says Biomet Hip Lawyer
On June 16, 2010, Ms. Clark underwent a surgical procedure to implant the M2a Magnum Hip System in her left hip. By this time, more than 74 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 refused to disclose that information to Ms. Clark, her physicians, or the public. Instead, Biomet misrepresented to Ms. Clark and her orthopedic surgeon that the M2a Magnum Hip System was safe and effective. In reliance on these representations, Ms. Clark’s orthopedic surgeon made the decision to use the M2a Magnum Hip System. If it were not for the misrepresentations made by Biomet, Ms. Clark’s orthopedic surgeon would not have used the M2a Magnum Hip System in Ms. Clark’s hip replacement surgery.
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. Clark’s hip implant failed, causing her severe pain.
On October 6, 2011, Ms. Clark 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.
Having to go through a revision surgery has subjected Ms. Clark 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. Clark sustained and continues to suffer economic damages (including lost wages, medical and hospital expenses), severe and possibly permanent injuries, pain, suffering and emotional distress. As a result, Ms. Clark 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.
Damages for Ms. Clark Revealed by Biomet Hip Lawyer
Segments from the Biomet Hip Lawsuit above, reveal that Ms. Clark underwent severe damages due to her implant. The Biomet Hip Lawyer relays the information pertaining to Ms. Clark’s defective device and resulting injuries. The Fourth Cause of Action is given below in the next Biomet Hip Lawsuit excerpt.
Breach of Express Warranty for Biomet Hip Lawsuit Defendants
At all times herein mentioned, Biomet expressly warranted to Ms. Clark and Ms. Clark’s physicians, by and through statements made by Biomet or their authorized agents or sales representatives, orally and in publications, package inserts and other written materials intended for physicians, medical patients and the general public, that the aforementioned M2a Magnum Hip System was safe, effective, fit and proper for its intended use.
In utilizing the aforementioned M2a Magnum Hip System, Ms. Clark and her physician relied on the skill, judgment, representations and foregoing express warranties of Biomet.
Said warranties and representations were false in that the aforementioned M2a Magnum Hip System was not safe and was unfit for the uses for which it was intended.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for the following:
1. Past and future lost wages, medical and incidental expenses, according to proof;
2. Past and future general damages, according to proof;
3. Punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
4. Prejudgment and post judgment interest;
5. Costs to bring this action; and
6. Such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
End of Biomet Hip Lawsuit Segment
Forward Steps to a Biomet Hip Lawyer
To move forward in your search for a Biomet Hip Lawyer, call Best Legal Source directly at (800) 611-7080 or you can fill out the above form and we will contact you. Any questions pertaining to the Biomet Hip Lawsuit are welcome. We are happy to make the procedures of finding a Biomet Hip Lawyer as easy as possible for you.
Biomet Hip Lawyer Resource Page