A patient who allegedly suffered severe side effects about which they were never warned has recently filed an M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit against the maker of the allegedly defective hip, Biomet.

In 2009, the plaintiff in this M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit underwent a left total hip arthroplasty surgery with the metal on metal Biomet device. Symptoms including dislocation, component loosening, severe pain, lack of mobility and metallosis, allegedly affected the patient and ultimately led to severe injury.

The lawsuit alleges that Biomet either knew or should have known about the M2A-Magnum hip replacement problems and should have notified the medical community and patients about the risks.

The M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit says that the defendants were aware that the hip replacement device, which was intended to help those patients undergoing hip replacement surgery, was prone to fail years before the life expectancy of 15 years.

According to the M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit, the socket and ball bearings making up the hip joint lead to debris being accumulated in the body over time. This can spread to the patient’s surrounding tissue and bone, and can lead to unnecessary pain and suffering, and a number of other severe side effects.

M2A-Magnum hip replacement side effects can include prolonged recovery times, more debilitation issues, revision surgeries to replace the defective device and a higher risk of complications and death associated with that surgery. The M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit says that the defendants did not recall the device after first receiving notice of these serious issues and instead continued to aggressively market it as an effective and safe hip replacement system.

The M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit says that the defendants should have warned the public of the risks as far back as 2006 or 2007 because the FDA had already received dozens of complaints about the issues at that time. The lawsuit blames the manufacturer, Biomet, for marketing, design, manufacturing and promoting a device that was unsafe for patient use.

Among other claims listed in the M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement lawsuit, the marketing campaigns from Biomet suggest that the device was a leader in the marketplace and a significant step forward for medical recovery.

Patients who experience breakdown in the device years before expected might not know that the side effects could be due to the design of the implant itself. Revision surgery and attempts to correct the issues could lead to other complications and severe pain. Many of the patients who have filed legal action claim they were never warned about the problems and were left to cope with them post-surgery.

A piece of research published in the British Medical Journal based on FDA research in 2011, however, revealed that the metal on metal hip implant devices were no more effective than traditional polyethylene lined implants, and that the metal on metal hip implants increased a patient’s risk for revision surgery.

The M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement Lawsuit is Case No. 3:17-CB-00196 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.