Hip & Knee Implant Litigation
With HarrisMartin's Hip & Knee Implant Litigation Report, you will be the first to know about critical developments in these emerging areas of medical device litigation. The report includes coast-to-coast coverage of Zimmer NexGen Knee, Durom Cup Hip, DePuy ASR and Pinnacle Hip, Wright Medical Technology Hip, Smith & Nephew R3 Hip and Journey Knee, Biomet M2a Magnum Hip, Stryker Rejuvenate, ABG II and Trident Hip and Triathlon Knee, and other developing orthopedic device cases. Click Here to Subscribe Now).
SEARCH THE ARCHIVES
Issue #92, February 2019
Erik W. Legg and Stephanie M. Rippee discuss common issues faced by defense counsel when challenging an opposing party’s expert economist or accountant and provide examples of several approaches to the expert challenge.
The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act (BAAA) preempts product liability claims against the supplier of component parts used in a hip replacement system that later failed because the defendant was not identified as the manufacturer of the system, an Idaho federal magistrate judge has ruled.
Issue #91, January 2019
The parties in the Zimmer M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis or M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinectiv Technology and VerSys Femoral Head MDL have submitted a proposed agenda for the Jan. 29 conference, in which they agreed that federal and state actions should be coordinated.
An Indiana federal judge has ruled that a tag-along action filed in the Biomet M2a Magnum Hip multidistrict litigation should be transferred to the Western District of Texas, where the plaintiff’s injury manifested, and his revision surgery occurred.
An Iowa federal judge has denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to strike various affirmative defenses asserted in a M2a Magnum Hip System case, ruling that Biomet may argue that the claims are barred by the Restatement (Second) and (Third) of Torts, its compliance with industry standards, plaintiffs’ assumption of risk as to product liability, and preemption.
DePuy Orthopaedics and its parent Johnson & Johnson have agreed to pay $120 million to settle deceptive marketing claims asserted by several states involving the companies’ metal-on-metal hip implants.
An Indiana federal judge has refused to reconsider his dismissal of claims against a Florida doctor who allegedly helped design the Biomet M2a Magnum hip implant, finding the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that he or his company consented to personal jurisdiction.
Retrial of a case targeting DePuy’s Pinnacle hip implant has begun in Texas federal court, following the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ reversal of a $502 million verdict due to “serious evidentiary errors” committed by the trial court.
An Alabama federal judge has remanded a spinal fixation system case filed against Synthes Spine Inc., ruling that the plaintiff asserted viable claims against an in-state sales representative, thereby destroying diversity jurisdiction.
An Arkansas federal judge has ordered the parties in a Biomet M2a Magnum hip implant case to present arguments as to why the case should not be transferred to a more convenient forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).