Judge denies metal hip maker’s request to dismiss lawsuit in multidistrict litigation

 Judge denies metal hip makers request to dismiss lawsuit in multidistrict litigationA lawsuit in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) will move forward against Biomet Inc. over its allegedly defective metal-on-metal hip implant after an Indiana federal judge declined the company’s request for dismissal. Biomet argued that the claim against the company was preempted by federal law because the device was approved for use as part of a clinical investigation to determine safety and efficacy.

The lawsuit was filed by Leslie Caccia who claimed he received a defective M2A-Magnum hip replacement system, made by Biomet. The complaint states the device damaged bone and tissue surrounding Caccia’s implant and he required multiple revision surgeries to remove and replace the device. Caccia’s lawsuit is one of several cases in the Indiana-centralized MDL involving the M2A-Magnum. The MDL is one of several MDLs involving so-called metal-on-metal hip implants from various medical device manufacturers in the United States.

Traditional hip implants are made with plastic or ceramic parts, and can last 20 years or more before needing to be replaced. In recent years medical device companies began manufacturing all-metal devices. The new devices were touted to be more durable and were especially marketed to younger and more active patients.

However, soon after the devices hit the market patients began reporting problems. The devices were failing at a higher than expected rate and were even linked to new problems – tissue death and a type of metal poisoning known as metallosis.

Some metal-on-metal hip implants were recalled, including the Johnson & Johnson DePuy ASR hip replacement and hip resurfacing systems. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also ordered manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip implants to collect safety and efficacy data on patients with the devices.

Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against metal-on-metal hip implant makers by people who claim they have been injured by the defective devices.

Source: Law 360