On May 12, the first bellwether trial for the Zimmer hip implant multidistrict litigation (MDL) came to a close with the Newark federal court jury ruling that plaintiff Christine B.’s Zimmer Durom Cup hip implant was filed after the one-year statute of limitations for the state of Louisiana, meaning that the lawsuit was barred from further litigation.

According to the hip implant lawsuit, Zimmer argued that Christine allegedly received notice of her hip implant claim sometime on or before December 2008. During this time, Christine’s physician allegedly informed the plaintiff that her hip pain was being caused by the defective Zimmer hip replacement.

Zimmer’s legal representatives further claim that the plaintiff’s personal injury claim was not accrued until she underwent hip revision surgery to extract the allegedly defective Zimmer Durom Cup, a procedure which would have ruled out other causes of pain including infection.

After three days of trial for this Zimmer hip implant bellwether case, the eight-person jury handed down a unanimous ruling to a New Jersey federal court presided by U.S. District Judge Susan Wigenton.

This Zimmer defective hip implant bellwether trial was split into two trials, with the initial trial dealing with the timeliness of Christine’s hip implant replacement lawsuit. Had this initial bellwether jury sided with a plaintiff, then the second phase of the bellwether trial would have begun with a separate jury ruling on the issue of Zimmer’s product liability.

Background on Zimmer Hip Implant Bellwether Case

Christine is a 65-year-old database programmer who originally had the Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement system implanted in her right hip back in 2006 and began suffering hip implant side effects approximately a year later.

During an orthopedic check-up in August 2008, her surgeon who originally implanted Christine with the Durom Cup hip replacement product informed her there was a gap between the implant and her hip bone, indicating she might need hip replacement surgery to address the issue.

According to the hip implant lawsuit, Christine’s doctor concluded that the Zimmer Durom Cup did not adhere to her bone because of a failure in the implant’s coating. Additionally, Zimmer’s attorneys argued that at this time, Christine’s doctor ruled out infection, meaning she was aware that the allegedly defective hip implant product was the cause of her personal injuries.

In a subsequent December 2008 check-up, the surgeon confirmed his earlier findings and counseled Christine to call Zimmer to discuss financial payment for the necessary hip revision surgery.

Christine’s Zimmer hip implant lawsuit is one of 400 similar hip lawsuits consolidated against Zimmer concerning their allegedly defective Durom Cup implant pending trial in federal court before Judge Wigenton.

Christine’s trial is the first Zimmer bellwether case of the Zimmer hip implant MDL. It is also the second hip implant lawsuit to conclude with a favorable verdict for the hip implant manufacturer, though Zimmer’s first hip lawsuit was a non-MDL case in an Illinois state court.