North Carolina Man Seeks Zimmer Hip Settlement
North Carolina resident David S. Beason, represented by his Zimmer hip lawyer, filed a complaint against the hip manufacturer on August 30, 2012. The case was originally proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles, but Zimmer later removed it to federal court in the Central District of California. The case is slated to be transferred to the current Zimmer multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New Jersey.
Beason claims that after he was implanted with the Zimmer Durom Cup hip device, he suffered serious injuries. He alleges the Durom Cup was defective and that the company should be held liable for failing to warn of the risks. The plaintiff seeks a favorable jury verdict or Zimmer hip settlement as compensation for his injuries.
Zimmer hip lawyer labels Durom Cup defective
According to the complaint, drawn up by his Zimmer hip lawyer, Beason was implanted with the Durom Cup on November 7, 2007. This was about a year after the FDA approved the device for use in total hip replacement procedures. Following the surgery, his wounds healed without infection, and his x-rays showed the hip replacement to be properly positioned.
Some time later, Beason claims he experienced Zimmer hip replacement problems, including pain and extreme weakness in his hip and other areas. He continued to suffer difficulties, and about two-and-a-half years later, on March 31, 2010, he went through revision surgery to have the implant removed and replaced.
Plaintiff seeks a Zimmer hip settlement or jury award
Beason contends that because of the defective metallic prosthetic components, he suffered bodily injuries and has sustained general damages, medical and related expenses, lost income, and pain and suffering. He seeks compensation to help pay for past and future medical expenses, present and future loss of income.
The plaintiff notes in his case that in 2007, Dr. Lawrence D. Dorr, a prominent surgeon in the state of California, communicated to Zimmer that an abnormal amount of his patients implanted with the Durom Cup were experiencing pain and required surgery to replace the component. He added that x-rays were showing the Durom Cup was failing because it was separating or loosening from the bone, causing the metal cup to move around in the hip socket and rub against the bone rather than fusing to the bone. This alleged design defect resulted in crippling pain for patients.
Reports of Zimmer hip replacement problems
Zimmer ignored Dr. Dorr’s warnings, so in April 2008, he publicly warned other orthopedists of the failures his patients were experiencing. He urged the manufacturer to stop selling the cup at that time.
On July 22, 2008, Zimmer announced a suspension of sales of the Durom Cup because of doctor complaints of high failure rates. The company did not recall the device, however. Rather, they completed an internal investigation and re-released it about a month later with updated surgical instructions.
Beason claims the defendants misrepresented the safety and effectiveness of the Durom Cup, and brings counts of negligence, breach of warranties, manufacturing and design defects, and failure to warn.