North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Artificial Hip

Depuy Pinnacle Hip Case: Judge Reduces Jury Award by $350 Million

Published on: August 25, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

In March 2016 five people injured by the Depuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal artificial hip scored a huge courtroom victory. In that case a Texas jury awarded five plaintiffs $502,043,908.00 for injuries suffered by the failure of the Depuy Pinnacle hip. That figure was divided in different ways to the five injured people. Of that amount, $360,000,000.00 was awarded by the jury for punitive damages. The jury concluded that the Pinnacle hip sold by Depuy was defective and that Depuy knew about the flaws but did not adequately warn patients and their doctors of the risks. Like I said, this was a huge win. Unfortunately, the punitive damages award did not last long.

Judge Forced to Reduce Punitive Damages Award

Punitive damages are money damages, separate from compensatory damages, which are awarded by a jury and which are intended to punish or deter a bad-acting defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct. Judge Kinkeade, who is the federal judge presiding over the Depuy Pinnacle multi-district litigation (MDL), stated that he was bound by a Texas statute which puts a limit or “cap” on the amount of punitive damages a jury can award. Thus, Judge Kinkeade was required by law to reduce the punitive damages award, which a jury of twelve individuals, after a 42 day trial, thought was appropriate.

Thank You, Tort Reform!

Metallosis: Serious Condition Caused By Metal-on-Metal Artificial Hips

Published on: August 11, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Over the years I have worked with many people who had hip replacement surgery. Many of these clients discovered high metal levels in their bodies from metal-on-metal (MoM) hip components. Often the person would let me know that she had her metal levels checked and that the blood work came back with abnormally high readings of cobalt, chromium, or other metals. Still, the treating physician would occasionally dismiss the blood work results. At least one doctor told a patient, “no one knows the effects of higher metal levels on the body. We haven’t studied the impact of metallosis sufficiently. It is nothing to be worried about at this point.”

Sadly, this isn’t true. And it’s not the best medical advice. There have been several studies over the years that looked at metallosis in the body derived from metal-on-metal hip components. The first incident of metallosis from MoM hip implants was reported in 1971. Since then, doctors have been reporting the higher incidence of metallosis in patients who received MoM artificial hip implants. Several scholarly studies have been conducted, including a recent one whose results were published this month examining the impact of metallosis on the cells of patients.

What Is Metallosis?

Depuy Loses Appeal; $8.3 Million Jury Verdict For Failed ASR Hip Stands

Published on: July 28, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Last week I wrote about the dreaded post-trial life of a product liability lawsuit. If an injured person wins the jury trial, and particularly if the jury awards a large amount of money, the plaintiff should expect to face an onslaught of post-trial motions and the inevitable appeal to the next highest appellate court.

That is exactly what happened in one of the first important Depuy ASR Hip trials in California.

The Jury Trial

On March 8, 2013, a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court awarded $8,338,236.12 for a man injured by the failure of the Depuy ASR Hip. Loren Kransky alleged that the Depuy ASR hip components were negligently designed, that the components had a design defect, and that Depuy failed to warn him and his doctors about the potential risks involved in implanting the device.

After a five-week trial in 2013, the jury in the California case awarded Mr. Kransky $338,236.12 in “economic damages” and $8,000,000.00 in “pain and suffering” damages. Jurors in the case found that the device was defective at the time of sale, and that it injured the plaintiff. The jury found in favor of Mr. Kransky and awarded damages for medical costs and for emotional suffering and distress.

The jury did not award punitive damages to Mr. Kransky. The jury did not find that Depuy acted with fraud or malice, which prevented an award of punitive damages. Which was good for Depuy, as Mr. Kransky’s legal team aggressively argued for punitive damages in amounts that could have exceeded $100,000,000.00.

I Won My Product Liability Trial, Now Manufacturer Has Filed an Appeal!

Published on: July 22, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, your lawsuit ain’t over till it’s over.

In a product liability case, most lawsuits end in a settlement. The plaintiff and the defendants work the case for a period of time, and eventually they sit down and hammer out a resolution to end the case. However, some product liability cases make it all the way to trial. I have written about jury verdicts in medical device and drug cases often on this site. Recently, for example, a young boy and his family won a whopping $70,000,000.00 verdict against Johnson & Johnson based on the boy’s disfigurement caused by the drug Risperdal. In that case, as in so many others, you may think that after years of litigation and after winning a complex jury trial that the plaintiff can finally leave the court system behind and get on with his life. But the case, sadly, may just be getting started. When medical device manufacturers and drug makers lose a big case with a large money award, expect them to throw the kitchen sink at you after the jury reaches its verdict. Let’s look a few things a defense team could do if it loses a big product liability case.

FMLA: Protected Time Away From Work For Artificial Hip Surgery

Published on: July 5, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

My second guest post was published today on the employment law website, The Spiggle Law Firm. Tom Spiggle runs a robust employment law practice in Virginia, and now and then he asks me to write posts dealing with legal issues that arise when a medical device or drug fails and threatens a person’s job or livelihood. In today’s post, I examine the protections an employee might receive under the Family Medical Leave Act when taking time off for hip replacement surgery or artificial hip revision surgery. You can read my article here: Will I Qualify for FMLA Leave If I Need an Artificial Hip?

With FMLA, certain companies have obligations to provide protected time away from work while an employee undergoes, and recovers from, surgery. The last thing you need when dealing with an artificial hip or knee surgery is that you may not have your job when you are fully recovered and ready to return to work. Under certain conditions, such as the size of the company, the FMLA may serve to protect your job while you undergo surgery and rehabilitation. There are several limitations and exceptions to the protections under the FMLA, but it is important for you to understand your rights and determine if your job is protected by the federal statute while you recover from hip surgery.

Check out my guest post, and good luck.

Failed Medical Devices Deprive People of Vitally Important Exercise

Published on: June 30, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I was reading an article about the latest study touting the benefits of exercise. It was stunning. The study involved analyzing the brains of two groups of mice: one group in a cage with an exercise wheel; the other in a cage without the wheel. Researchers watched the mice for four weeks. Predictably, the mice with the exercise wheel exercised; the mice without the wheel did not. After a month the scientists measured brain activity in both groups.

Turns out, running and other forms of exercise produce a protein in the brain called “brain-derived neurotropic factor” or BDNF (I feel smarter just writing that name). This stuff is very good for your brain. BDNF promotes the growth and vigor of neurons. BDNF has also been shown to strengthen the synapses that connect neurons, which allows the brain to function better. Low levels of BDNF has caused cognitive decline in people and animals. Exercise increases levels of BDNF in the brain.

Exercise Promotes BDNF and Ketones

In the study scientists discovered that in the brains of mice who exercised regularly, a molecule which blocked the growth of BDNF was less effective. As a result, much more BDNF was produced in the mice who exercised. Sadly but predictably, less BDNF was produced in the sedentary mice. Researchers also found that the exercising mice produced ketones which make their way to the brain and fight off the bad molecules and further promote the growth of BDNF. The guy who directed the study, NYU professor Moses Chao, said: “It’s incredible just how pervasive and complex the effects of exercise are on the brain.”

You can check out the new study here. It’s the latest in a long line of studies which prove time and again that exercise is vital to your health. Seriously, people have to exercise. Not exercising causes all kinds of physical and mental problems.

Judge Denies Motion to Delay Depuy Pinnacle Hip Trials

Published on: June 20, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

They say justice delayed is justice denied. Apparently Judge Kinkeade in the Depuy Pinnacle Artificial Hip MDL thinks so. On June 10, 2016, Judge Kinkeade denied Depuy’s motion to delay all future trials until the company completes its appeal of a massive $500 million jury verdict.

Depuy Orthopaedics and its parent company Johnson & Johnson filed their “motion to stay” on May 24, 2016. They asked the court to delay all further trials in the Depuy Pinnacle MDL until an appellate court rules on their appellate issues. (It is very common for a company in any case to appeal a trial verdict when the jury awards significant damages to the plaintiffs.) Depuy claimed there were significant errors made at the trial. Depuy also argued that the decision in the appeal could have “far-reaching implications” on how future Pinnacle cases are tried. Defendants claimed the “grounds for appeal are strong” and that they “acted appropriately and responsibly in the design and testing” of the devices.

Judge Kinkeade, who presides over the Depuy Pinnacle MDL in Dallas, Texas, denied the motion to stay the trials. In his order Judge Kinkeade selected seven bellwether cases to be tried beginning September 6, 2016. You can read that Order here.

Depuy ASR Hip Failure: Nine-Year Window For Revision Surgery

Published on: June 10, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Many people still have the Depuy ASR hip components implanted in their bodies. I get calls from them. Some have elevated metal levels in their blood; others are telling me about pain in the hip area, popping sounds, and other problems. They are preparing to schedule revision surgery, and they want to know if they may qualify for compensation based on the settlements that have been reached with Depuy, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, the parent company.

These are good questions. I want to make sure you are aware of a nine-year window for undergoing revision surgery.

Two Settlement Agreements So Far

As I have explained in this blog, there have been two Depuy ASR settlement agreements, mostly identical in material terms. The major difference is that the first settlement agreement covered those who had undergone revision surgery prior to August 31, 2013. The second settlement covered those people who had revision surgery between August 31, 2013 and January 31, 2015.

Depuy Pinnacle Artificial Hip Litigation: Defendants Seek Delay of New Trials

Published on: June 8, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

A request by Depuy Orthopaedics Inc. to delay more trials concerning its Depuy Pinnacle hip implants is pending in the federal court in charge of thousands of cases against the company. The request came from Depuy on May 24. Depuy asks the Court to hold off on further trials until an appeal of one large case tried in March is resolved. That case, which I wrote about here and here, resulted in a stunning $502 million verdict for five people injured by the defective artificial hip components. So Depuy is plainly motivated to delay, if not overturn, the award. If the request is granted it will take much longer for other plaintiffs to have their cases tried, as complex appeals like this one can take years to resolve. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. I hope federal judge Ed Kinkeade in Texas denies Depuy’s motion. These remaining cases deserve their day in court.

Depuy and the other defendants claim their planned appeal could have “far-reaching implications” on how future cases are tried. Defendants claim the “grounds for appeal are strong” and that they “acted appropriately and responsibly in the design and testing” of the devices.

My Depuy ASR Hip Is Still Implanted: Do I Have a Claim for Compensation?

Published on: May 24, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I have been getting a few calls recently from people who still have the Depuy ASR hip implanted in one or both hips. They are asking the right questions: Are the metal levels in my blood too high? How will metallosis affect my long-term health? Will the component slip on me now and cause all kinds of new pain? Should I schedule surgery and have the Depuy ASR components removed? Plainly, these are questions for a doctor, not a lawyer. I can’t answer any questions specific to your health. Eventually, however, these callers ask an intriguing question: I have the Depuy ASR hip implanted in my body and I have not yet scheduled revision surgery: Do I have a valid claim against Depuy and Johnson & Johnson? It’s a good question.

People with Depuy ASR hip components implanted in their bodies who did not undergo revision surgery did not “qualify” for the two settlements that have been reached in the Depuy ASR multidistrict litigation (DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2197). But this does not mean they are not injured or that they do not have a valid claim. All it means is that they did not qualify to participate in the settlement based on the timelines in the settlement agreements. Let’s take a step back.

Initial Consultation919-546-8788

★★★★★

I was involved in a case for the faulty hip replacements. Clay Hodges represented me. I can't say enough about how much he has helped me. Clay was able to win multiple settlements on my behalf with most of them being the maximum amount able to be awarded. Matt J.

Clay, thank you sir for making a disheartening experience at least palatable, you and your staff were honest, caring and understanding through the entire process of my wife’s hip replacements, while monetary settlements never make the pain and suffering end, it sometimes is the only way people can fight back to right a wrong. J. V.

We are absolutely pleased with how Clay Hodges handled my husband’s hip replacement claim. He always kept us informed of the progress. And, his work resulted in a settlement which we are extremely pleased. Thank you, Clay! Carol L. & Norm L.