Pennsylvania Plaintiff Joins DePuy Hip MDL
Goosley’s lawyer names as defendants DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.; and Johnson & Johnson, Inc. The case was later removed to MDL 2244, which consolidates complaints against the manufacturers in one federal court.
Pinnacle hip implant marketed as superior
In 2001, DePuy launched the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System, a hip implant device. The Pinnacle hip implant was designed and developed to treat human hip joints that had been damaged or diseased due to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, vascular necrosis, and other problems. According to Goosley’s Pinnacle hip replacement lawsuit, the device was marketed as a solution for pain relief, as well as to provide a consistent and smooth range of motion. Furthermore, the defendants claimed that the device had, “significant advantages over other hip devices and hip replacement systems” and that it was the “best surgical option.”
More than 1,300 complaints fail to prompt device recall
Since the product’s launch, approximately 150,000 Pinnacle devices have been sold; of those, more than 1,300 adverse event reports have been submitted to the FDA. These consumer complaints report failure and complications related to the device. According to Goosley’s DePuy hip lawyer, the defendants “are aware that Pinnacle Devices may result in metallosis, biologic toxicity and high failure rate… and further aware that the metal particles from Pinnacle Devices result in metallosis tissue death, bone erosion and development of tumors.” Nevertheless, the defendants have refused to issue a Pinnacle hip recall to address the alleged problems and complaints related to the implant.
DePuy hip replacement lawsuit alleges negligence
On September 20, 2006, William Goosley underwent a total hip arthroplasty procedure and received a Pinnacle hip device in his left hip. After surgery, he began experiencing complications, severe pain and discomfort in and around his implant. On November 28, 2012, his physician ordered hip aspiration to examine fluid around the implant; the aspiration revealed debris-filled, brown fluid, indicating possible metallosis and other complications.
The plaintiff’s DePuy hip lawyer brings charges of negligence, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, design defect, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty, and fraud. Goosley requests compensation for pain and suffering, past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity, medical expenses, physical impairment, and other damages.
- With Warning, a Hip Device Is Withdrawn. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/business/
- Daily News & Analysis. (2011 December 7). Have a hip implant? Cops want you. http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_have-asr-hip-implant-cops-want-you_1622432