A Minnesota man who says he underwent two failed hip replacement surgeries is now suing the hip implants’ manufacturer, alleging it knowingly concealed defects in the implants.

Plaintiff John F. is suing Biomet Inc. and related companies, the manufacturers of the M2A-Magnum hip replacement system. This system uses a metal-on-metal ball-and-socket joint to replace the natural femoral head and acetabulum. Biomet promoted the Magnum device as having a longer service life than the older type of hip implant that used a polyethylene liner, making it preferable for younger, more physically active patients.

John says he received a Magnum device in his hip replacement surgery in February 2010. After that surgery, he allegedly suffered from “increasingly debilitating pain, discomfort, soreness, dysfunction, and loss of range of motion.” He had the Magnum device surgically removed in April 2010, and that August he allegedly had a second such device implanted. The second implant led to more of the same symptoms. He had the second Magnum device surgically removed in June 2012.

John now attributes the failure of both these implants and his ensuing residual symptoms to inherent defects in the Magnum devices. His Biomet hip implant lawsuit cites a set of British studies released in March 2010 that found a tendency in metal-on-metal hip implants, like the Magnum device, to release metal particles into the body. These particles can lead to an inflammatory response, resulting in pain, death of surrounding tissue, and bone loss. He also claims that his hip revision surgery significantly elevates his risk of future dislocation, citing a study from the American Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.

He also cites a 2011 report by the Australian Orthopedic Association that showed the Magnum device had a yearly cumulative revision rate after seven years that was higher than that of other metal-on-metal hip implant systems. John says that as early as 2006 the FDA began receiving reports of premature failure of these devices, requiring “complicated, expensive, and painful revision surgeries.” John says that despite these problems, Biomet continued to market the Magnum devices as safe and effective.

He further alleges that Biomet purposely concealed the problems with its Magnum devices while courting investors, in an effort to make itself appear more appealing as an investment prospect. A private equity firm purchased Biomet in 2007 for $10 billion.

John now alleges Biomet’s effort to keep the Magnum device’s defects under wraps prevented him from finding out about those defects until after his surgery. He says that if Biomet had properly alerted him and his surgeon to the risks associated with the Magnum devices, he would have chosen an older model of hip implant that uses a polyethylene liner instead of a metal-on-metal joint.

John’s hip implant lawsuit raises claims for defective product design, inadequate warning, breach of warranty, violation of the Minnesota Consumer Protection Act, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. For compensation, John is asking the court for a damage award to cover past and future medical bills, past and future lost income, physical disability, and pain and suffering. He also asks for double or triple damages as allowed by law and an award of punitive damages.

The Biomet Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 0:15-cv-02442-JNE-BRT in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.