Replacement Spinning Penn

Posted in Penn Fishing Gear by Penn Fishing Gear on December 23, 2011

Replacement Spinning Penn

Hip Replacement Recall by DePuy Grounds for Product Liability Lawsuits

DePuy Orthopaedics' not testing its products adequately which resulted into the product recall was what spurred victims to file DePuy lawsuits. Even more detrimental is the fact DePuy delayed the recall as long as possible instead of acting appropriately at the first sign of trouble. As early as 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had received 300 complaints regarding the hip replacements, and a study by the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry showed that the same hip implants failed within five years in 12 to 13 percent of cases. It is at this point that victims of the recall should start questioning the legal options that are available to them.

The ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System are the two defective hip replacement systems that are currently involved in the DePuy recall. Both these systems fail due to a phenomenon called “edge-loading”. This is a result from the friction between the metal components causing release of chromium and cobalt particles to be released and affected the immediate surrounding tissue. As a result, the implant may weaken, fracture, and cause failure. These metal particles circulating in the bloodstream cause a condition known as “metallosis” in which the particles incite a hypersensitivity, inflammatory reaction potentially affecting the cardiovascular system as well as causing neurological damage.

In order to define a product liability lawsuit, the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant’s product caused damages by (a) a design defect, (b) a manufacturing defect, or (c) failing to warn consumers of the underlying dangers the product causes. For a successful argument regarding design defect, the plaintiff must demonstrate that DePuy did not sufficiently test the product or utilized design methods that were significantly more dangerous than previous ones. For product disclosure situations, the plaintiff must demonstrate that DePuy was aware of the products’ defects, but failed to initiate the recall in an appropriate amount of time. These stipulations are applicable to the DePuy hip replacements since they present a design defect in the hip replacements and the fact that the company failed to warn consumers about these defects.

Patients who believe that they have a products liability lawsuit against DePuy may be entitled to compensation and should consult an experienced lawyer handling these types of cases. Information regarding ongoing litigation may be found on the DePuy hip replacement recall website.