ILNews

Biomet settles hip-replacement litigation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

The most serious cases from among more than 950 patients around the nation who claim they were harmed by a Warsaw company’s implanted hip-replacement devices will share in a settlement expected to exceed $100 million, according to an attorney involved in the case.

Warsaw-based Biomet Inc. and plaintiffs in mass-tort multidistrict litigation submitted a settlement agreement Feb. 3 to Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in South Bend.

biomet-hip-replacement-1col.jpg An x-ray shows a Biomet metal-on-metal replacement hip that is the subject of multidistrict litigation in federal court. (Submitted photo)

The case, In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation, 3:12-MD-2391, was initiated by patients who received implanted Biomet M2a Magnum or M2a 38 hip replacement devices that had metal-on-metal ball-and-socket parts that they alleged resulted in a variety of problems.

In the most serious cases, the implant had to be replaced or a “revision” surgery was required to remedy injuries that ranged from shed metal that caused toxic reactions to dislocation or failure of the devices.

Patients who required revision surgery each will be entitled to a base payment of $200,000 under the settlement, which may be discounted if the surgery was required after a significant number of years. The exact number of claims isn’t known, nor is the potential settlement pool, because settlement came just as discovery of claims was proceeding.

“We’re very pleased” with the settlement, said Indianapolis attorney Robert Dassow of Hovde Dassow & Deets LLC, local liaison for the plaintiffs steering committee, who confirmed the settlement total is likely to exceed $100 million.

“Essentially, anybody that had a revision surgery and had one of the particular metal-on-metal devices will be compensated under the settlement,” he said.

Biomet doesn’t admit wrongdoing or concede plaintiffs “suffered any cognizable injury” in the settlement.

“Plaintiffs and Biomet are mindful of the uncertainties engendered by litigation and are desirous of settling and compromising their differences,” the settlement says.

“Biomet is pleased to have reached this settlement and have the MDL resolved,” the company said in a statement. “Biomet appreciates the guidance provided by Judge Miller to bring this litigation to an expeditious and efficient resolution.”

Dassow said Biomet also has agreed to mediate the cases involving plaintiffs most seriously harmed, probably fewer than 20 implant recipients. Those mediations are scheduled to be completed by December 5, and individual cases that aren’t settled will be remanded.

Under the settlement, plaintiffs will have until April 15 to file a claim to join the mass tort. Patients with problems that didn’t require revision surgery will have their claims stayed until the revision claims are settled. As of Feb. 3, 237 plaintiffs were grouped as non-revision patients, meaning more than 700 may be in the revision group. Based on a calculation of $200,000 per revision plaintiff, the total pool for revision cases alone could exceed $140 million.

Ninety percent of the revision group or two-thirds of the mediation group must agree to the terms before Biomet moves an initial payment of $50 million into escrow, according to the settlement.

Miller set a status hearing for April 24, after the deadline passes for plaintiffs to join the mass tort. By June 13, all plaintiffs must file preliminary disclosure forms with the court.

The forms will disclose the nature of their claims and the extent of alleged injuries from the implants, and their claims will place them on either the revision or non-revision track.

Assigned to Miller in October 2012, Biomet plaintiffs’ claims were designated a mass tort action because the problems were deemed related to product-liability but not common enough to constitute a class.

The Food and Drug Administration in 2013 reported concerns about hip implants designed with metal-on-metal parts after convening an advisory panel a year earlier.

Chiefly, the joint devices may release metal debris when the socket and ball rub together, and metals such as cobalt and chromium can shed and be absorbed into the bloodstream affecting organ function or cause local infections, according to the FDA.

Of 33,394 device problems the agency tracked with the M2a Magnum and significantly similar devices, metal-shedding was most common. Rarer reported problems included difficulty standing and walking and loosening of the replacement hip joint.

“Different people will react to these metal particles in different ways,” the FDA stated last year. “At this time, it is not possible to predict who will experience a reaction,” or the type of reaction.

Biomet, a privately held company, claims in its marketing materials that in lab tests “all-metal components demonstrated a 99 percent reduction in wear over conventional polyethylene (plastic) components.”

But after a study on British patients, the medical journal The Lancet reported in 2012 that 6.2 percent of metal-on-metal hip implants required revision surgery within five years, a rate more than three times higher than for plastic-on-metal implants.

The United Kingdom and some other nations later recommended annual blood test monitoring for patients who received metal-on-metal hip replacements. A U.K. registry showed that after seven years, about 15 percent of patients who received metal-on-metal hip replacements required revision surgery.

The FDA stopped short of advising testing for metal-on-metal hip implant patients who show no symptoms. The agency did, though, recommend that patients follow up with their surgeons every year or two to monitor for any hip-status changes.

“The FDA will continue to gather and review available data on currently marketed metal-on-metal hip implants and will provide updates as necessary to patients and health care providers,” it said.

Prior to the settlement, Miller in December indicated that a few representative cases where patients required revision surgery would be among those selected for the first bellwether trials in June 2015.

The case is one of only two active multidistrict litigation cases in Indiana federal courts and is among 67 current multidistrict product liability cases nationwide, according to a mid-January report of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Six of those cases involve hip-replacement product liability claims; six others involve claims of faulty pelvic-repair systems.

The panel referred the case to Miller’s court even though plaintiffs and defendants proposed the cases be heard elsewhere. “Biomet itself is based in nearby Warsaw, Indiana. With many of the relevant documents and witnesses likely found there, the district should be convenient for Biomet,” the panel ruled.

The Biomet plaintiffs steering committee is led by co-counsel Thomas R. Anapol of the Anapol Schwartz firm in Philadelphia and W. Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm P.C. in Houston. Biomet is represented by lead defense counsel John D. Winter of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP in New York.

Settling plaintiffs would be subject to a provisional holdback of no more than 6 percent of individual recovery for common benefit attorney fees and costs under the agreement. Biomet also agrees to deposit $6 million into a fund for common attorney fees when the settlement is approved by the required number of plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, another Indiana company is defending 150 claims in multidistrict litigation. Bloomington-based Cook Medical Inc. is facing mass tort cases involving allegations of faulty pelvic-repair implants. Bellwether trials in the Southern District of West Virginia are scheduled to begin in October in In Re: Cook Medical, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2440.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Terri
    My problem of understanding is it says your are entitled to this 200,000. well then why does Biomet makes lowball settlement offers to people who have gone through hell because of having to get there bad hip revised and they Biomet wants you to settle for an offer of $25,000. That does not even begin to cover the costs of other issues associated with having to get there hip out due to high metal levels... Something is wrong here..
  • attorney fees
    I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  2. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  3. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

  4. When I hear 'Juvenile Lawyer' I think of an attorney helping a high school aged kid through the court system for a poor decision; like smashing mailboxes. Thank you for opening up my eyes to the bigger picture of the need for juvenile attorneys. It made me sad, but also fascinated, when it was explained, in the sixth paragraph, that parents making poor decisions (such as drug abuse) can cause situations where children need legal representation and aid from a lawyer.

  5. Some in the Hoosier legal elite consider this prayer recommended by the AG seditious, not to mention the Saint who pledged loyalty to God over King and went to the axe for so doing: "Thomas More, counselor of law and statesman of integrity, merry martyr and most human of saints: Pray that, for the glory of God and in the pursuit of His justice, I may be trustworthy with confidences, keen in study, accurate in analysis, correct in conclusion, able in argument, loyal to clients, honest with all, courteous to adversaries, ever attentive to conscience. Sit with me at my desk and listen with me to my clients' tales. Read with me in my library and stand always beside me so that today I shall not, to win a point, lose my soul. Pray that my family may find in me what yours found in you: friendship and courage, cheerfulness and charity, diligence in duties, counsel in adversity, patience in pain—their good servant, and God's first. Amen."

ADVERTISEMENT