Monday, October 8, 2012

Indiana Federal Court to Hear Biomet Consolidated Hip Implant Lawsuits

Despite opposition by Biomet, the manufacturer of the M2a Magnum hip system, federal judges agreed to consolidate all current Biomet hip implant lawsuits, sending them to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Mass Device, a website covering the business of medical devices, noted that 65 pending cases were moved from other jurisdictions to the Indiana court despite protests by Biomet. According to PRWeb at Equities.com, Biomet’s objection to the consolidation revolves around the company’s contention that the current lawsuits encompass issues which are highly plaintiff-specific and are directed at a product which has not been recalled. Most other lawsuits regarding defective hip implants are directed at companies with recalled hip implants such as the DePuy ASR.

Biomet contends that because they have successfully defended and settled cases regarding the M2a Magnum in the past, they should be given that opportunity once more rather than have the current lawsuits consolidated. In the objection filed in response to the MDL (Case OHS/2:12-cv-00396) Biomet argues that the litigation is distinguishable from other metal-on-metal hip litigation because the Magnum product contains a broad array of components as compared to other MOM implants whose complaints center on the acetabular cup. Biomet also states the M2a Magnum has been available for eight years in the United States making it “as a whole, more mature and procedurally more diverse,” than other MOM lawsuits.

Further, PRWeb states that Biomet believes the M2a Magnum hip implant to have far fewer problems than similar hip implant devices. The panel of federal judges, while admitting Biomet’s arguments contained merit, did not find them strong enough to deny the request for consolidation. The consensus among the judges was that each of the lawsuits brought against Biomet regarding the M2a Magnum contained the central issue of a common defect which was responsible for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries. While agreeing that injury litigation, by its very nature, contains causation issues which are plaintiff-specific, the panel of judges deemed those differences insufficient to impede consolidation of the lawsuits.

Consolidation of these types of lawsuits generally allow the claims of plaintiff’s to be resolved in a more efficient, timely manner while conserving the resources of all those involved. MDL stands for multidistrict litigation and the procedure is meant to speed the handling of complex cases, generally those regarding defective drugs or defective medical device cases. These individual cases will show a pattern in how the alleged injuries occur, however each individual could have suffered a variety of injuries or circumstances.

Alleging the metal-on-metal design of the Biomet M2a Magnum hip implant device is defective, lawsuits MDL No. 2391 further states that this particular Biomet device can lead to early failure or higher than normal levels of metal ions known which can lead to metallosis. On July 12, 2012, a Fox News article noted that there are a variety of hip implant manufacturers currently experiencing implant recipient complaints similar to those received by Biomet including DePuy, Wright Medical and Zimmer Holdings.

Print
0 Comments

Categories: Imported ArticlesNumber of views: 1288

Tags: Biomet M2a Magnum hip system MDL No. 2391

Please login or register to post comments.

WARNING: Do not send any information in any email through this website if you consider the information confidential or privileged.

I understand that by submitting my contact information to Sullo & Sullo LLP for review, I consent to messages regarding this legal matter as well as marketing for other potential legal matters in the future without limitation at standard messaging and data rates unless terminated by me in writing. I further understand that my submission of any and all information in response to this website does NOT create a lawyer-client relationship between myself and Sullo & Sullo, LLP and/or its lawyers, and that any and all information submitted is NOT confidential or privileged. I further acknowledge that, unless Sullo & Sullo, LLP subsequently enters into an Attorney-Client relationship with me, any and all information I provide will NOT be treated as confidential or privileged, and any such information may be used against me and/or for the benefit of current or future clients of Sullo & Sullo, LLP. ...READ ENTIRE DISCLAIMER
Receive an Immediate Response
ANDREW SULLO IS A TOP 100 NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYER 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019
Obtener una Respuesta Inmediata
Andrew Sullo – 100 Mejores Abogados Nacional | 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017


4.6/5.0

STARS ON YELP
WITH OVER 400 REVIEWS*

*AS OF 2024



Andrew Sullo has been named a

TOP 100 NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYER*
2013-2024

*BY THE NATIONAL TRIAL LAWYERS

 

CALL NOW FOR A FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION
(800) 730-7607
CALL NOW FOR A FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION (713) 839-9026 CALL NOW FOR A FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION (713) 335-9485


Andrew Sullo is a recipient of the

AVVO CLIENT'S CHOICE AWARD*
2016, 2017, 2019-2024

*GIVEN BY AVVO


Justice

Andrew Sullo is a Member of the

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUSTICE
2013-2024

*GRANTED BY THE AAJ

 

IF YOU OR A LOVED ONE WERE SERIOUSLY INJURED DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANOTHER, CONTACT SULLO & SULLO IMMEDIATELY.
CALL NOW
(800) 730-7607
CALL NOW
(713) 839-9026
CALL NOW
(713) 335-9485

GET LEGAL HELP