Zimmer Hip Settlement | Zimmer Hip Recall

California Woman Sues Zimmer, Claims Durom Cup is Defective

Shay Morrigan | December 18th, 2012

California resident Margaret Dayne is hoping for a Zimmer hip settlement or jury award to compensate her for injuries she allegedly suffered after being implanted with the Zimmer Durom Cup. She and her husband filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 2, 2012.

Dayne states that Zimmer failed to recognize the deficiencies of the Durom Cup due to poor and inadequate quality assurance procedures. She adds that the defendant failed to conduct sufficient testing on the components of the implant system in order to identify potential problems.

Plaintiff forced to undergo painful revision surgery

According to the complaint, drawn up by a Zimmer hip lawyer, Dayne was an energetic wife who had an active lifestyle despite her osteoarthritis. Relying on Zimmer’s marketing of the Durom Cup, she and her physician thought the device would give her better stability and range of motion compared to others on the market. Dayne claims she expected a significant improvement in her quality of life after the initial hip replacement surgery on October 24, 2007.

Afterward the implant procedure she says she suffered great pain and agony that restricted her ability to engage in the physical activities she had previously enjoyed, and also impacted her ability to perform normal work duties.

She was later diagnosed with metallosis and a pseudo-tumor, and had to undergo revision surgery to replace the implant on February 1, 2012. She continues to struggle with performing many basic physical activities, and her injuries still affect her ability to work, spend quality time with her husband and family, sleep comfortably, and perform basic household chores.

Zimmer temporarily suspends sales of Durom Cup

Zimmer is a metal-on-metal hip implant that places a metal ball inside a metal cup. Post-marketing studies have revealed that all metal implants increase risk of metal contamination in the tissues surrounding the joint, as well as throughout the rest of the patient’s body. In the plaintiff’s case, she, like others who have received metal implants, may have suffered from metal debris causing death to the soft tissue and bone surrounding her hip.

In addition to the metal-on-metal problems, the Zimmer Durom Cup was also designed to bond to the patient’s hipbone. Rather than being cemented or screwed into place during implantation, it was sprayed with a highly engineered substance intended to facilitate the cup’s acceptance by the human body, so the bone would grow into the exterior shell of the cup. In reality, however, the cut was found to resist bone growth and as a result, to come loose and/or pop free from the hip, causing damage to the pelvic bone.

The FDA approved the Zimmer Durom cup in 2006, but in 2008, the company implemented what has been labeled a Zimmer hip recall. In response to surgeon complaints, on July 22, 2008, Zimmer temporarily suspended sales of the Durom Cup to address concerns regarding reports of loosening and revisions. They re-released the product about a month later, stating that they had found no evidence of a defect, and were providing updated surgical instructions.

Plaintiff seeks Zimmer hip settlement or jury award

Dayne brings counts of negligence, manufacturing and design defects, failure to warn, breach of warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, constructive fraud, negligence per se, unlawful business practices, and unjust enrichment. Her husband claims loss of consortium.

The plaintiff may hope to reach a Zimmer hip settlement prior to trial or a favorable jury verdict to help offset the medical expenses she has incurred from her injuries.