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

  • 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT