North Carolina Product Liability Lawyer Blog

Articles Posted in Artificial Hip

Loss of Consortium in Transvaginal Mesh, Artificial Hip, IVC Filter Cases

Published on: May 13, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Most people have heard of the claim “loss of consortium.” It comes from the root word consort meaning to associate, to spend time, to hang out with. The definition of the legal claim goes like this: loss of consortium is a claim for (money) damages by the spouse or close family member of a person who has been injured or killed as a result of the negligence or wrongful act of another person. It is a derivative claim, which means it derives or flows from the primary injury to the spouse or family member. Essentially, it creates a separate plaintiff (usually a spouse) and “piggybacks” off the injury to the injured person. A loss of consortium claim cannot exist without the recognized injury to the spouse or family member.

The Lost Sex Claim

People sometimes think of loss of consortium as the “loss of sex” claim. And in fact, one important injury under loss of consortium is that the primary injury prevented a loving married couple from enjoying intimacy and sexual intercourse in the same manner they enjoyed before the accident. Let’s face it, when intimacy is lost or diminished based on the negligence of others, people should be compensated. It’s one big reason we have the derivative claim.

But loss of consortium extends beyond married sexual relations. Suppose a married couple were passionate about sailing and took sailing trips most weekends, but the failure of an artificial hip placed a married woman in a wheelchair and made it impossible for her to climb onto the sailboat. In most states a loss of consortium claim could be made that the loss of this treasured activity deeply damaged the quality of life of the husband. Similar claims can be made for couples who actively garden together, play tennis, travel, or even cook.

$8.9 Million Stripped by Judge From Plaintiff in Wright Conserve Hip Case

Published on: April 19, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

A lawsuit can be a minefield. For one, it can go on for years. And in that time opposing counsel can (and will) challenge a person’s lawsuit in large and small ways. By large I mean bringing “dispositive motions,” which are motions that “dispose” of a case, like a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. These motions are defensive attempts to kick a lawsuit out of court before it reaches a jury. By small I mean opposing counsel may refuse to produce certain documents or information in the “discovery” process, or may simply use motions or other tools to slow down and delay the plaintiff’s opportunity to have her case reach a jury.

But the fight is not over when the jury reaches a verdict in a product liability case. If a plaintiff wins her lawsuit, the defense will typically file “post-trial motions,” and after those motions are heard will likely appeal to a higher court. Merely getting a good jury verdict is by no means the end of the story.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge in Georgia stepped in after a jury verdict and stripped almost nine million dollars of punitive damages from the amount of money the jury awarded to the injured plaintiff.

But I need to back up.

In Re: Wright Medical Technology Inc. Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2329); Christiansen, No. 13-00297 (N.D. Ga.)

Jury Awards Astonishing $502 Million to Five Depuy Pinnacle Hip Victims

Published on: March 22, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

The ground moved on March 17, 2016. In a Dallas Texas courtroom a federal jury ordered Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson to pay five unfairly injured people $502 million dollars, including a stunning $360 million in punitive damages. The jury based this award on findings that Depuy hid critical defects in the design of the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip system and hid these risks from doctors and patients.

I’ve written about this case before (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 11-md-02244, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas)). Five plaintiffs (Aoki, Christopher, Greer, Klusmann, Peterson) agreed to have their cases tried together. This was not a “class action” lawsuit. Rather, because the five individual cases had sufficient similarities, the judge, parties, and attorneys agreed to try all five cases in one jury trial. The single jury heard all the evidence in these cases, but Judge Ed Kinkeade instructed the jury to consider liability in each individual case, and to award separate damages for each plaintiff. Boy did they.

$360,000,000 in Punitive Damages

Five patients implanted with the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip were awarded $502,000,000.00. The jury concluded that the Pinnacle hip sold by Depuy was defective and that Depuy knew about the flaws but did not warn patients and their doctors of the risks. The jury awarded $142,000,000.00 in actual damages and $360,000,000.00 in punitive damages.

Depuy is owned by parent company Johnson & Johnson, who will be on the hook for paying this judgment.

Employment Issues When an Artificial Hip Fails: My Guest Post

Published on: March 8, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

I was asked by an employment lawyer in Arlington, Virginia to write a guest article on employment issues that often arise when a client’s artificial hip fails. My post was published today. You can check it out here: Two Key Protections When You Lose Your Job or Wages Following Artificial Hip Failure.

As you can read in the article, a client typically has to deal with physical challenges and employment issues when an artificial hip or other medical device fails. It can be financially devastating to be physically incapacitated and unable to return to your normal work hours. I have had clients who had to resign their positions because they could no longer sit at a desk or stand in a car lot for long hours. But there are ways to protect yourself when you are in this position, and you should be aware of them. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits employers from firing you simply for having a disability. Also, you can and should bring a claim for lost earnings in your product liability lawsuit for a failed medical device or failed drug. You can read about lost earnings claims in the context of the Depuy ASR Hip Settlement here.

Depuy ASR Artificial Hip “Part B” Settlement for Future Injuries

Published on: March 4, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Over the past several weeks we have reviewed the Depuy ASR Settlement Agreement, and recently the Part B extraordinary injury money awards that are available to qualified injured people. You can read about the Part B “Extraordinary Injury Fund” (“EIF”) here, and about Part B “Miscellaneous Injuries” here.

In this post I want to talk about the “Future Matrix,” which is a section in both settlement agreements that provides a pathway for individuals to pursue additional compensation when a problem arises after the original settlement has been signed and initial payments have been made. It can be a very useful option for recovering additional money if a serious health problem arises after the initial settlement has been paid and resolved. Let’s jump in.

Depuy ASR Hip: “Part B” Payments for Lost Earnings, Young Age, Etc.

Published on: February 23, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

In previous articles we looked at the Depuy ASR Settlement Agreement compensation framework. We examined the Part A base award here, and looked at the Part B “Extraordinary Injury Fund” (“EIF”) here. Just to recap, if you received a Depuy ASR hip in a hip replacement surgery, and it later “failed,” causing you to need revision surgery, you likely qualified for participation in the Depuy ASR settlement program.

The Part A award was one monetary award based on having to undergo hip revision surgery. The default Part A amount was $250,000.00, and this figure could be reduced by certain factors, such as smoking, obesity, advanced age, and length of time between original surgery and revision.

The Part B awards were built around “extraordinary injury,” and included compensation to people suffering from less common bad results, such as heart attack, stroke, foot drop, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, dislocation, or infection.

In this post I want to drill down a bit on one of the vague areas of potential compensation in the Part B “matrix.” The Depuy Settlement Agreement designates an area for compensation for miscellaneous injury, which is referred to as Matrix Level VII (Discretionary). Let’s look at a few examples:

Depuy Pinnacle Hip Cases Currently Being Tried to Jury in Texas

Published on: February 2, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

There is a very important Depuy Pinnacle hip case being tried in Dallas, Texas as I write this.

The federal court system has consolidated many of the Depuy Pinnacle lawsuits into one multidistrict litigation in the North District of Texas (3:11-md-02244) presided over by federal judge Ed Kinkeade.

Bellwether Cases

Back in August, Judge Kinkeade selected certain cases as “bellwether selections” and ordered the parties to organize those cases for jury trials. Bellwether cases are representative cases which have broad characteristics in common with many of the remaining cases.

So Judge Kinkeade ordered that five separate cases would be consolidated into one (very large) jury trial, to start January 8. Those five plaintiffs are:

Aoki
Christopher
Greer
Klusmann
Peterson

One jury will hear all the evidence in these cases, but the judge will allow the jury to consider liability in each case, and to award separate damages in each case. Based on court filings, all five plaintiffs are from Texas, and each case has many similarities, thus making them amenable to trying together. In the language of the law, these five cases have “common issues of law and fact.” Opening arguments began January 11. The case is supposed to last three months.

Failed Artificial Hips: What Cases Are Still Active in 2016?

Published on: January 27, 2016 | By Clay Hodges

Artificial hips have been failing for years now. The effort in the last two decades to build and market a metal-on-metal hip that might last the patient’s lifetime has not been a success. The manufacturers were too quick to move the new metal hips to market, and using the flawed 510(k) fast-track process, they did not test the devices sufficiently to understand the risks. As a result, thousands of people suffered through hip replacement surgery failure and had to undergo revision surgery, just months or a few years after the original surgery. Because of these hip failures, thousands of lawsuits have been filed. The litigation continues for many people, and will continue for years. Still, because most of the failed medical hip products were recalled or taken off the market years ago, the litigation is plainly winding down with several of these artificial hip devices. So what’s still going on? And what does this mean for you?

Client To Lawyer: Listen to Me!

Published on: November 16, 2015 | By Clay Hodges

So often in life people get things exactly backward. Many lawyers, even great lawyers, see themselves first as accomplished advocates and gifted orators, and therefore in client meetings these lawyers will speak “at” their clients, dispensing their “expertise” and dominating the conversation. On and on and on. This is a mistake. These lawyers presume wrongly that the client has scheduled a meeting to hear the lawyer’s latest thoughts on case strategy, or that the client wants an extended briefing on the status of discovery or the latest trial motion.

This is almost completely wrong.

What Clients Want

Clients want to be heard. They want to be understood. They want their attorney to listen. And not just listen, but listen deeply.

I get it. The client has entrusted the attorney with a huge responsibility. The client has handed over her case to a professional to manage and maneuver it through the dense thicket of the legal system, and to handle the case well enough to achieve a successful outcome.

But it’s more than that: the client has handed over her story to the attorney. There is so much more involved in a lawsuit than merely grinding through discovery, dispositive motions, mediation, and trial. The lawyer is responsible for building the story of the client’s case. And every case is a compelling story. It’s the lawyer’s job to hear it.

Zimmer Persona Artificial Knee Recall: Lawsuits Mounting

Published on: November 11, 2015 | By Clay Hodges

“The Most Anatomically Accurate Knee Implant”

In 2012, medical device manufacturer Zimmer, Inc. introduced the Persona artificial knee to the public with lofty language. Zimmer announced that the company was “redefining knee arthroplasty and ushering in a new era of personalization with the introduction of the Persona Knee.” Zimmer stated on its website that by “working with more than 50 of the world’s most respected orthopaedic surgeons, and utilizing analytics from both genders and 1,500 different bone types from 26 different ethnicities, Zimmer was able to create the most anatomically accurate knee implant.”

The reported advantage of the Persona knee system, according to Zimmer, was that it would give surgeons several component options for each patient and each surgery, thus assuring a tailored fit for the patient. Again, from Zimmer: “the result is an implant system that addresses the unique needs of the patient and accommodates surgeon-specific preferences — all while empowering surgeons to minimize “trade-offs” and better optimize results.” Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Zimmer sold the Persona knee from November 2012 through March 2015. A lot of them. But bad things began to happen. People began reporting pain and other symptoms, including loosening of the knee components inside the leg.

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.