A consumer recently filed a Biomet M2A Magnum lawsuit alleging that the Magnum hip replacement was defective.

Plaintiff Patrick H. filed a Biomet M2A Magnum lawsuit against Biomet Inc, Biomet Orthopedics LLC, Biomet U.S. Reconstructions LLC, and Biomet Manufacturing Inc. Patrick argues that their Magnum hip replacement system caused him to undergo revision surgery due to early device failure.

In September 2008, Patrick says he underwent a total hip replacement surgery and was implanted with the M2A Magnum hip replacement system. After the implantation, Patrick allegedly suffered from debilitating pain, soreness, discomfort, dysfunction, and loss of range of motion.

In July 2014, Patrick underwent an arthrogram. During an arthrogram, contrast dye is injected into the bloodstream and the patient then has an MRI done. This gives the doctor a detailed picture of what is happening in the problematic joint. Due to the results of his arthrogram and his persistent pain, Patrick claims, he underwent revision surgery in April 2016 to replace the Magnum hip replacement system.

The M2A Magnum hip replacement system is a metal-on-metal implant device intended to replicate the natural hip joint. The Biomet M2A Magnum lawsuit argues that the device fails years before its expected lifespan as a result of metal debris from the device.

As both the ball and socket of the joint are made of metal, wear and tear from joint movement allegedly caused metal debris to be released into the body. The metal can spread through the patient’s bone and tissue, causing pain, lack of mobility, inflammation, tissue damage, tissue death, and an increased chance of needing revision surgery.

Since 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has allegedly received an increasing number of reports involving patients with the Magnum hip implant requiring revision surgeries. In 2011, the FDA reportedly required Biomet to provide blood metal levels of patients with the Magnum hip implant due to an increased number of reports. The FDA later released a report in the British Medical Journal stating that metal-on-metal hip implants, such as the Magnum hip replacement system, are no more effective than traditional implants and increase the risk of revision surgery.

The Biomet M2A Magnum lawsuit argues that the manufacturers should have recalled the hip implant system after receiving notice of complaints made to the FDA. Instead Biomet allegedly “continued to aggressively market the Magnum Device, claiming it was a safe and effective hip replacement system. Indeed, Defendants sought to capitalize on the problems with the competitor devices by asserting the superiority of the Magnum”.

Patrick argues that due to Biomet selling a faulty product, he suffered from severe metal poisoning and metallosis, an additional surgical procedure, lost wages, future loss of earning capacity, medical expenses, future medical expenses, and permanent harm due to complications from a second hip replacement.

Patrick accuses Biomet of design defect, failure to warn, breach of warranty, violation of the Consumer Protection Act, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. The Biomet M2A Magnum lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, special damages, punitive damages, court costs, attorneys’ fees, and a trial by jury.

The Biomet M2A Magnum Lawsuit is Case No. 3:18-cv-00229-RLM-MGG in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.