A Massachusetts couple has filed their claim for legal compensation based on complications associated with the husband’s Biomet hip implant.

Plaintiff David G. of Massachusetts alleges he received an M2a Magnum Hip System, made by defendants Biomet Inc. and Biomet Orthopedics LLC, during hip replacement surgery he underwent in November 2011.

Eventually that hip implant failed, causing him “constant and severe pain.” He had to have the implant removed in hip revision surgery conducted in February 2015.

David argues that the Magnum hip implant system is a defective and dangerous product, and that Biomet kept manufacturing and selling the Magnum system despite being aware of those defects. He says the main problem with the Magnum system is its lack of a polyethylene acetabular liner between the femoral head and the acetabular shell.

That metal-on-metal hip implant design causes metal bearing surfaces to rub against each other under pressure, which David says leads to shedding of cobalt and chromium particles into the surrounding tissue. He says the loose metal particles stimulate the body to try to reject the implant. The rejection response leads to symptoms of “pain, looseness, dislocation, and squeaking and popping sounds,” he says.

David alleges that Biomet was well aware of the problems caused by the Magnum’s metal-on-metal design. He says that Biomet received hundreds of reports of failed Magnum hip implants. Similarly, the FDA has received hundreds of reports of adverse events associated with the Magnum system, he says.

Despite their alleged knowledge of the Magnum’s defects, David says, Biomet did not recall the Magnum system but instead simply kept selling it. In fact, Biomet continued to promote the Magnum as a safe and effective hip implant system. The company produced brochures describing the metal-on-metal hip implant system as safe and durable. David says that he and his physician relied on these and other statements by Biomet when they decided to use a Magnum system in his hip implant surgery.

David also alleges that certain statements Biomet made in its promotion of the Magnum hip implant system were simply false. He cites Biomet’s representation that the Magnum system offers “optimal joint mechanic system and ultra low-wear rates in vivo,” and that many studies of the system showed no connection between metal-on-metal hip implant systems and health problems.

David claims that in allegedly misrepresenting the safety of the Magnum system, Biomet was motivated by a desire to make the company more appealing to potential investors. He says that Biomet actively concealed the alleged defects in the Magnum system prior to its sale to a private equity firm in 2007 for $10 billion. David accuses Biomet of focusing “on corporate profits, and at the expense of patient safety.”

On his own behalf, David is raising claims based on theories of negligence, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. David’s wife Jeanne is bringing her own claim for loss of consortium, a type of claim that the spouse of an injured person can bring to seek compensation for the harm done to the marital relationship.

The Biomet Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 3:15-CV-00491 in theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.