Biomet Lawyer
08/06/2012 Biomet Lawyer: Biomet Lawyers are now filing cases for Biomet Metal on Metal Biomet hip replacements. These medical devices made from metals such as cobalt and chromium are raising concerns, because in recent years, studies have indicated the devices can wear, causing metal debris that can be absorbed into the patient’s body. A Biomet Lawyer will represent individuals harmed by these Biomet metal-on-metal hip implants. Contact Best Legal Source and we will help you connect with an experienced Biomet Lawyer qualified to file medical device litigation. Call our helpline or complete the free evaluation form on this page.
Biomet Lawyers are concerned we may be seeing the beginning of a growing problem
Over the last decade, the use of metal-on-metal hip replacements has increased. Metallosis is a condition in which metal particles might buildup in the tissue surrounding the implanted joint. Metallosis may produce the following symptoms: severe pain, loosening of the implant, swelling and inflammation, bone deterioration and failure of the hip replacement. If you are experiencing any of these side effects, contact your healthcare profession immediately and consider getting in touch with a Biomet Lawyer to determine your legal rights. You may be facing subsequent hip replacement revisions. Speaking with a qualified Biomet Lawyer can be reached through the free evaluation form on this page or calling Best Legal Source directly by contacting our helpline number.
How is Best Legal Source connected to a Biomet Lawsuit?
A Biomet Lawyer will represent a client who has suffered from the severe side effects of a defective hip replacement. The mission of Best Legal Source is to connect injured parties with Biomet Lawyers who help these individuals get back to their lives by financial compensation and holding accountable those individuals responsible for their suffering. If you hire a Biomet Lawyer, he will work on a contingency fee basis which means you do not pay unless your case is successfully settled.
Do not wait too long to contact a Biomet Lawyer
Every state has its own time limits called Statutes of Limitations. So, if a Biomet Lawsuit is not filed within the required time, it may be dismissed. Therefore, do not wait until your statute of limitations is about to expire. Speak with a Biomet Lawyer as soon as you receive or discover an injury. Best Legal Source is here to assist you in connecting with a Biomet Lawyer to determine your legal rights.
In conclusion, if you or a loved one has suffered or been injured from a defective Biomet Hip Implant or need a revision surgery, you could be eligible to receive financial compensation. Call Best Legal Source at (800) 611-7080 today and we will put you in touch with a Biomet Lawyer for a free confidential consultation. These skilled Biomet Lawyers are available to answer any questions you have regarding the Biomet Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacements, a possible Biomet Class Action Lawsuit, or any other litigation pertaining to Biomet Hip Implants.
Please review the following Biomet Lawsuit information
Content in the form of headers and comments are stated throughout the lawsuit below. These observations should not be taken as legal advice since it has not been written by an attorney. This excerpt has been taken from a Biomet Lawsuit referencing a product liability case held in the United States District Court in California. It involves a defective hip replacement system.
Here begins the Biomet Lawsuit
2012 WL 3040733 (N.D.Cal.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, N.D. California.
Karla FELTON, Plaintiffs,
v.
BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet, LLC, and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants.
No. 3:12CV03741.
July 12, 2012.
Jury Trial Demanded
Complaint for: (1) Strict Product Liability, (2) Negligence, (3) Breach of Implied Warranties, (4) Breach of Express Warranty
Plaintiff KARLA FELTON (“Plaintiff”), alleges on information and belief against BIOMET ORTHOPEDICS, LLC, BIOMET, INC., and BIOMET, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, (“Defendants”), the following:
INTRODUCTION
This is a product liability case involving a defective hip implant system. Plaintiff KARLA FELTON 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. Felton’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. Felton to undergo a complicated and risky surgery to remove and replace the defective implant.
Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet LLC are collectively referred to herein as “Biomet.”
The Biomet Lawyer uses “factual background” to explain a Biomet Lawsuit
A Biomet Lawsuit or Biomet Class Action Lawsuitwould potentially involve individuals who were implanted with a defective Biomet metal-on-metal hip replacement. These individuals have undergone hip surgery only to realize they might require a future revision surgery. The most significant aspect of a Biomet Lawsuit would be financial compensation for the high cost of hospital and medical bills.
Factual Background contains, within the Biomet Lawsuit, a description of the hip implant
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The M2a Magnum Hip System Is Defective And Was Not Adequately Tested
The hip joint is where the femur connects to the pelvis. The joint is made up of the femoral head (a ball-like structure at the very top of the femur) rotating within the acetabulum (a cup-like structure at the bottom of the pelvis.) In a healthy hip, both the femur and the acetabulum are strong and the rotation of the bones against each other is cushioned and lubricated by cartilage and fluids.
A total hip replacement replaces the body’s natural joint with an artificial one, usually made out of metal and plastic. A typical total hip replacement system consists of four separate components: (1) a femoral stem (labeled as “hip implant” in the diagram to the left), (2) a femoral head, (3) a plastic (polyethylene) liner, and (4) an acetabular shell. After the surgeon hollows out a patient’s femur bone, the femoral stem is implanted. The femoral head is a metal ball that is fixed on top of the femoral stem. The femoral head forms the hip joint when it is placed inside the polyethylene liner and acetabular shell.
While most hip replacements use a polyethylene plastic acetabular liner, Biomet’s M2a Magnum Hip System has a critical difference: it is a monoblock system which does not have an acetabular liner. Instead, the M2a Magnum Hip System forces metal to rub against metal with the full weight and pressure of the human body. Because of Biomet’s defective design for the M2a Magnum Hip System, hundreds of patients-including Ms. Felton -have been forced to undergo surgeries to replace the failed hip implants.
The M2a Magnum Hip System suffers from a design or manufacturing defect that cause excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium to wear and corrode from the surface of the acetabular cup, from the femoral head, and from the taper adapter. These cobalt and chromium fragments prompt the body to react by rejecting the hip implant. The design of the M2a Magnum Hip System was not sufficiently tested by Biomet, and it was never approved by the FDA as being safe or effective for the products’ intended purpose.
Biomet Lawyer groups raise the question whether Biomet knew their implants were defective
The Biomet Lawsuit alleges that the metal-on-metal hip system suffers from a design defect that can cause amounts of cobalt and chromium to corrode from the device. It also states the Biomet hip replacement was not adequately tested before putting on the market. Read on for more from the Biomet Lawyer of this case.
Ms. Felton’s Biomet Lawyer argues the device was sold knowing it could injure her and others
It wasn’t long after Biomet launched the M2a Magnum Hip System that reports of failures began flooding into Biomet. For example, on in August 2004, Biomet received a complaint that a patient had to undergo a surgery to remove and replace an M2a Magnum Hip System because it had become loose after only 3 years. Biomet closed its investigation of this complaint.
Biomet would go on to receive hundreds of similar complaints reporting that the M2a Magnum Hip System had failed and that the failure had forced patients to undergo painful and risky surgeries to remove and replace the failed hip component. To date, more than 350 reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum Hip System have been filed with the FDA.
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.”
C. Ms. Felton’s M2a Magnum Hip System Was Defective And Failed, Forcing Her To Undergo An Additional Painful And Risky Surgery
On June 10, 2005, Ms. Felton 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. Felton, her physicians, or the public. Instead, Biomet misrepresented to Ms. Felton and her orthopedic surgeon that the M2a Magnum Hip System was safe and effective.
Statements made by her Biomet Lawyer are expressed in the following content
Biomet Lawyer groups pursue Biomet Lawsuit cases because they believe their clients have suffered because of the revision surgeries they are forced to endure. These surgeries are usually longer and riskier than the original hip replacement surgery.
The Biomet Lawsuit excerpt continues to explain Ms. Felton’s pain and suffering
On September 8, 2008, Ms. Felton 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. Felton 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
As a direct and proximate result of the failure of her defective M2a Magnum Hip System and Biomet’s wrongful conduct, Ms. Felton 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. Felton 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.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Product Liability)
Against All Biomet
Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth here and further alleges as follows:
Biomet designed, manufactured, promoted, distributed, marketed, and sold the M2a Magnum Hip System.
Bear in mind that this Biomet Lawsuit has missing content for ease of understanding
The Biomet Lawyer wants the following sections introduced to state that the Biomet Hip Implant was in a defective and dangerous condition at the time it was marketed to the public. It is important to know that the manufacturer should have known about the dangers their medical device could produce. We have omitted some content from the Biomet Lawsuit for the sake of length. The following section includes the Biomet Lawsuit causes of action written by the Biomet Lawyer.
The continuing excerpts now continue with Biomet Lawsuit First Cause of Action
Such condition included, but is not limited to, one or more of the following particulars:
(a) When placed in the stream of commerce, the M2a Magnum Hip System contained manufacturing defects, subjecting Ms. Felton and others to risks, including the risk that the acetabular component would not properly grow into the bone, causing the hip system to prematurely fail and requiring a complex, risky, and painful surgery to remove and replace the defective product;
(b) When placed in the stream of commerce, the M2a Magnum Hip System contained unreasonably dangerous design defects and was not reasonably safe for the intended use, subjecting Ms. Felton and others to risks, including the risk that the acetabular component would not properly grow into the bone, causing the hip system to prematurely fail and requiring a complex, risky, and painful surgery to remove and replace the defective product;
(c) The M2a Magnum Hip System was insufficiently tested; and
(d) The M2a Magnum Hip System was not accompanied by adequate instructions and/or warnings to fully inform Ms. Felton or her physicians of the full nature or extent of the risks associated with its use.
Biomet knew or should have known of the dangers associated with the use of the M2a Magnum Hip System, as well as the defective nature of the M2a Magnum Hip System. 34. Ms. Felton and her doctor used the M2a Magnum Hip System as directed for its intended purpose.
The M2a Magnum Hip System had not been materially altered or modified prior to its implantation in Ms. Felton.
Biomet Lawyer cites negligence regarding design defect of Biomet hip implant
The Biomet Lawsuit alleges that Biomet was negligent and that the Biomet hip implant was defectively designed. Sufficient testing was not performed to confirm and ensure the hip implant was safe for its planned use. Biomet Lawyer claims continue with the second cause of action.
Second cause of action by California Biomet Lawyer
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
Against All Biomet
Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth here and further alleges as follows:
At all times herein mentioned Biomet had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, labeling, promotion, marketing, and sale of the M2a Magnum Hip System to ensure that it would be safely used in a manner and for a purpose for which it was made.
Biomet maliciously, recklessly and/or negligently failed to exercise ordinary care in the design, manufacture, testing, inspection, labeling, promotion, marketing, and sale of the M2a Magnum Hip System.
Biomet maliciously, recklessly and/or negligently failed in their duty to exercise reasonable care in the provision of an adequate warning to Ms. Felton and her physicians as to the risks of the M2a Magnum Hip System.
As a result of Biomet’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Warranties)
Against Biomet and DOES 1 – 10
Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth here and further alleges as follows:
Prior to the time that the M2a Magnum Hip System was used by Ms. FELTON, Biomet impliedly warranted to Ms. Felton and her physicians that the M2a Magnum Hip System was of merchantable quality and safe and fit for the use for which it was intended.
Biomet, by selling, delivering and/or distributing the defective M2a Magnum Hip System to Ms. Felton, breached the implied warranty of merchantability and fitness and caused Ms. Felton to suffer severe pain and emotional distress, incur medical expenses and incur a loss of earning capacity.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Express Warranty)
Against Biomet and DOES 1 – 10
The Fourth Cause of Action for the Biomet Lawsuit
Ms. Felton and her physician depended on the skill, representations and judgment of the manufacturer of Biomet Hip Replacements. The Biomet Lawyer has included all the necessary information in Ms. Felton’s Biomet Lawsuit, such as several major complications associated with a total hip replacement including dislocation or loosening of the implant, wearing of the components and infection. The remainder of Biomet Lawsuit excerpt is given below.
Final content of the Biomet Lawsuit follows below
Plaintiff incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth here and further alleges as follows:
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.
As a result of the foregoing breach of express warranties by Biomet, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.
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.
DATED: July 12, 2012
End of Biomet Lawsuit Document
Contact a Biomet Lawyer for assistance with receiving financial compensation
If you believe you qualify for damages that could be awarded in a Biomet Lawsuit, please contact Best Legal Source to submit your information to a Biomet Lawyer who will review your case at no cost or obligation to you. Call our helpline today at (800) 611-7080.
Biomet Lawyer Resource page:
