Zimmer Hip Implant Lawsuit | Zimmer Hip Statute Limitations

Alaska Zimmer Hip Implant Lawsuit Joined in Multidistrict Litigation

Staff Writer | January 6th, 2012

After his Zimmer hip lawyer filed a suit on his behalf in an Alaska federal court, an Alaska man’s case has been consolidated with the ongoing Zimmer hip implant lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) currently underway in New Jersey.

Anchorage dentist retains Zimmer hip lawyer after device fails

Michael Darling, a 66-year-old resident of Anchorage, Alaska, filed his complaint through his Zimmer hip lawyer in federal district court in September of 2011.  According to his complaint, Michael Darling had a Zimmer-manufactured hip implant component known as the Durom Acetabular Component (referred to as the “Durom Cup”) surgically implanted in his left hip in May of 2007.

Through his Zimmer hip lawyer, Darling alleges that the Durom Cup was defective and that it soon caused him severe pain and injury, and limited both his physical activities and his professional work as a practicing dentist.  Mr. Darling’s wife, Lucy Darling, is also a plaintiff in the Zimmer hip implant lawsuit, seeking compensation for loss of consortium.  The Darlings’ case was transferred by court order to the New Jersey MDL in October of 2011.

Zimmer Hip Statute of Limitations Issue Raised

As part of the complaint filed by Mr. Darling’s Zimmer hip lawyer, Mr. Darling argues that any applicable Zimmer hip statute of limitations has been tolled as a consequence of Zimmer’s actions.  At issue is whether Mr. Darling waited too long to file his suit and is therefore time-barred from seeking damages.  If the Zimmer hip statute of limitations applied, then Mr. Darling would be unable to collect compensation for the injuries suffered by him and his wife.

As argued by Mr. Darling’s Zimmer hip lawyer, however, the Zimmer hip statute of limitations should be tolled, or extended, because Zimmer allegedly failed to inform either patients or medical professionals of known flaws with its metal-on-metal implants, thereby essentially concealing the information Mr. Darling would have needed to file suit earlier.

According to the complaint, it was not until Mr. Darling saw television commercials in 2010 about the recall of another defective hip implant that he realized his symptoms could be a consequence of a defective Zimmer device.  Shortly thereafter, his complaint alleges, he made contact with a Zimmer hip lawyer and filed his Zimmer hip implant lawsuit.

The determination of whether any Zimmer hip statute of limitations has been tolled in this case would ultimately be made by the New Jersey federal judge overseeing the MDL.  For now however, the issue has not placed in issue by the defense.