Plaintiff Alleges Zimmer’s Disregard for “Human Suffering”
Another Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit, filed by a Zimmer hip lawyer, has been transferred to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) currently moving forward in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Removed to the MDL on October 7, 2011, plaintiff Pauline Papaccio’s lawsuit alleges that, prior to the Zimmer hip recall of the Durom Cup implant in 2008, she suffered debilitating Zimmer hip problems such as early loosening of component parts, as well as revision surgery.
Zimmer hip lawyer alleges Zimmer hip problems
Originally filed by a Zimmer hip lawyer on July 11, 2011 in U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Florida, Papaccio’s Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit not only contends that her Durom Cup artificial hip “was defective and failed,” but that artificial joint maker Zimmer “knew or should have known that the Durom Cup was not safe.” Despite this fact, according to Papaccio’s Zimmer hip lawyer, the hip manufacturer aggressively marketed the Durom Cup Acetabular hip system to patients and doctors with a “willful, wanton, and malicious” recklessness, demonstrating “a total disregard for human life and human suffering.”
Zimmer hip recall didn’t come soon enough for Papaccio
According to the official complaint of her Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit, drafted by her Zimmer hip lawyer, plaintiff Pauline Papaccio enjoyed an active lifestyle at the time she received her Durom Cup hip on April 6, 2008. By April, 2011, however, when she was forced to undergo hip revision surgery to remove the allegedly defective device, Papaccio could no longer enjoy daily activities such as beach walks with her husband, landscape painting, biking, walking her dogs, and gardening. Not only did she now require a cane to walk, but she could no longer drive a car, due to the fact that she could not reliably shift her right foot from the accelerator to the brake.
Zimmer hip implant lawsuit seeks multiple damages
Papaccio’s Zimmer hip lawyer seeks damages for his client for the “great pain and agony” she has experienced, as well as compensation for her mental anguish, economic losses, impairment of earning capacity, medical bills and related costs, attorney fees, and all additional costs linked with her Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit. Meanwhile, co-plaintiff Daniel Papaccio, Pauline’s husband, seeks compensation for the “severe emotional distress” his wife’s Zimmer hip problems caused him, including those derived from the loss of his wife’s companionship, services, love, society and affection.
Zimmer’s Durom Cup hip model was marketed as an implant whose component parts would not require cement adhesives or screws to lock into place, but would instead naturally fuse with the patient’s hip bone. According to Papaccio’s Zimmer hip lawyer, however, “the Durom Cup implant resists bone growth and, as a result, instead of adhering to the bone, it comes loose and/or pops free from the hip.” As is made clear in the complaint for Papaccio’s Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit, such device dislocation can lead to premature revision surgery.