Plaintiff Required Surgeries for Zimmer Hip Replacement Problems
On January 15, 2013, a new Zimmer hip lawsuit was filed on behalf of Thomas Hart in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The complaint, which was filed against Zimmer, Inc., is currently proceeding under Judge James V. Selna. The lawsuit alleges Zimmer hip replacement problems with an implant device that was manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff claims that the implant device was defective and necessitated multiple revision surgeries. Hart notified the defendant that he is seeking general damages in excess of $300,000 and special damages in excess of $100,000.
Removal to federal district requested
On March 6, 2013, the lawyers for the defendants filed a notice of removal motion to change the venue from the state court to a federal district. The notice claimed that removal to federal court is justified due to diversity of citizenship. The plaintiff is a California citizen, whereas the defendant is a Delaware corporation that lists Warsaw, Indiana as its principal place of business.
Zimmer hip lawsuit alleges revision surgeries
On May 20, 2010, Thomas Hart underwent a total right hip arthroplasty. His right hip joint was removed and a Zimmer hip implant known as the Epsilon system was installed. According to the plaintiff’s Zimmer hip lawyer, the components were used in a reasonable manner by the plaintiff, yet he suffered a dislocation of the hip implant on July 2, 2010.
On July 22, 2010, the plaintiff underwent a revision surgery. The surgeon used additional Zimmer components to repair the dislocated implant. However, Hart continued to suffer from ongoing pain of the right hip. On January 24, 2011, a physician determined that the source of the pain was that a locking ring on one of the Zimmer components was broken. This component had been installed during the first revision surgery.
The component continued to degrade to the point at which the entire implant became jeopardized and the plaintiff was unable to walk. These Zimmer hip replacement problems occurred in October of 2011. On November 3, 2011, the plaintiff underwent another revision surgery in an attempt to fix the problem. However, on May 9, 2012, Hart’s physician informed him that the replaced component had broken yet again. The plaintiff has not yet undergone a third revision surgery; however, he is a candidate for it.
Zimmer hip replacement problems alleged by other plaintiffs
Hart is hardly the first plaintiff to allege the need for revision surgery as a result of Zimmer hip replacement problems. Other plaintiffs have complained of problems with various Zimmer devices, including the Durom Cup. Patients with these issues typically experienced mobility problems, along with significant pain. Zimmer hip replacement surgeries have been required when the device breaks, dislocates, or fails to adhere to the bone.
Failure to warn alleged by Zimmer hip lawyer
According to this Zimmer hip lawsuit, the Zimmer hip replacement problems stemmed from the inherent and unnecessary risks of its design. The lawsuit points out that the plaintiff underwent revision surgery to install the Zimmer Durasol Constrained insert twice, and that both times, this component broke. The complaint further alleges that the defendant failed to adequately warn consumers and physicians of the potential risks involved with the Zimmer hip implant.
Both before and after the plaintiff’s incidents, the defendant received complaints from other patients. Hart’s Zimmer hip lawyer alleges that the company ignored these complaints to the detriment of the patients. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages for past and future medical expenses and rehabilitative expenses, along with past and future economic losses and damages for pain and suffering.