California Woman Seeks $1 Million in Damages for Zimmer Hip Problems
California resident Margaret Dayne filed a Zimmer hip lawsuit on November 2, 2012. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, in Los Angeles.
Dayne claims that after being implanted with the Zimmer Durom Cup, she experienced serious injuries. She claims that Zimmer, Inc. is liable, and seeks $1 million in damages.
Plaintiff suffers Zimmer hip problems
According to the complaint, Dayne was implanted with the Zimmer Durom Cup on October 24, 2007. Prior to the surgery, she claims she was an energetic wife who had an active lifestyle despite being diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Like many patients, she states that because of the company’s marketing efforts, she and her physician assumed the Durom Cup would provide her with better stability and range of motion than other hip devices on the market. She expected to see an improvement in her quality of life after the operation.
After the surgery, Dayne experienced multiple Zimmer hip problems, including pain and difficulty walking without assistance. She says that she was later diagnosed with metallosis and pseudotumors allegedly caused by the metal-on-metal design of the implant. Because of these issues, she had to undergo revision surgery on February 1, 2012.
Details of 2008 Zimmer hip recall
Dayne also notes in her Zimmer hip lawsuit that the Durom Cup was approved in 2006, when it was advertised as being a better solution for active patients. As early as 2007, however, physicians like Lawrence Dorr, M.D., a world-renowned orthopedic surgeon and Zimmer consultant, noted a high percentage of failures. Dr. Dorr himself reported an 18.5 percent failure rate at follow-up in a select group of patients.
Dr. Dorr notified the manufacturer of the complications he was seeing, but the company ignored his warnings. In April 2008, he publicly warned other surgeons about the failures with a memo to the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. In July 2008, Zimmer responded by temporarily suspending the sales of the implant, but they re-released the product a month later, stating there were no defects, and that Zimmer hip problems were due to surgical error.
These events were going on when the plaintiff was originally implanted with the device. She claims that Zimmer should have warned both her and her doctor of the known complications.
Zimmer hip lawsuit brings counts of negligence
In her complaint, the plaintiff brings counts of negligence, manufacturing and design defect, failure to warn, breach of warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and constructive fraud. Her husband claims loss of consortium. The couple seeks economic, non-economic, compensatory, and punitive damages.