Idaho Durom Cup Lawsuit Removed to Federal Court
On August 6, 2012, Erika Oliver’s Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Together with her Zimmer hip lawyer, Oliver charged the defendant manufacturer with failure to warn, breach of warranty, negligent product liability, and other allegations.
Zimmer investigates implant after high incidence of reported problems
In October 2006, Oliver underwent hip surgery to receive Zimmer’s Durom Cup. Soon after, she began to experience symptoms of implant fracture. Her Zimmer hip lawyer alleges that Oliver will be forced to undergo corrective hip surgery due to product failure.
Other plaintiffs across the country have alleged that Zimmer’s Durom hip replacement has resulted in hip failure, bone damage, implant loosening, and other issues that compromise device integrity.
In July 2008, the company issued a temporary suspension of sales due to a high incidence of reported problems. After a brief review period, Zimmer denied liability and put the Durom Cup back on the U.S. market. To date, there has been no Zimmer hip implant recall issued for the Durom Cup implant.
Plaintiff’s Zimmer hip lawyer claims injuries and disfigurement
Oliver’s Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit alleges that the Durom Cup she received in 2006 was “defective and caused, and will continue to cause, her damages.”
According to her Zimmer hip lawyer, the manufacturer is liable for negligent product liability, failure to warn, strict product liability, and a breach of warranty. In her original complaint, Oliver requested special and general damages for personal injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, and physical impairment.
Zimmer hip replacement lawsuit removed to District Court
Oliver first filed her case on July 18, 2012 in the Fourth Judicial District Court for Ada County, Idaho. The plaintiff named Zimmer U.S. as the primary defendant.
On August 6, 2012, her case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The grounds for removal included timeliness, amount in controversy (exceeding $75,000), and diversity of citizenship among all proper parties. While Oliver is a resident of Idaho, Zimmer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana, thus is considered a citizen of Delaware and Indiana for purposes of determining diversity. Since the plaintiff and defendants are residents of different states, federal court is considered the proper venue for Oliver’s lawsuit.