A California woman has filed a total hip replacement lawsuit against Biomet, alleging the metal on metal hip replacement caused her bodily harm.

Plaintiff Geertrudia P. underwent total hip replacement surgery and had the M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement System implanted in July 2008.

“As a result of the issues with the Magnum Device, Plaintiff has suffered symptoms including pain, swelling, inflammation, and damage to surrounding bone and tissue, and lack of mobility,” the total hip replacement lawsuit states.

Geertrudia’s symptoms are a result of her hip implant loosening, fracturing, dislocation and the spread of metal debris that was generated from the metal on metal friction of the various device parts while in motion.

In contrast to a traditional hip implant device, a metal on metal hip implant like the Magnum from Biomet lacks a liner that is situated between the moving metal parts of the device.

Because of this, in a metal on metal hip implant device, the metal components touch while the implant is in motion, causing metal particles to flake off in the process.

These metal particles that are released can cause metal poisoning in the body and can also cause tissue death surrounding the implant. The tissue death can lead to loosening of the implant, fracture and dislocation of the device.

Total Hip Replacement Lawsuit Allegations

As a result of her debilitating pain and symptoms, the total hip replacement lawsuit states that the plaintiff had to undergo revision surgery to replace the Magnum Device.

The lawsuit claims that this revision surgery would not have been necessary if the Magnum Device had performed as it should have.

The plaintiff has also been permanently harmed by developing metallosis, or metal poisoning, from the metal debris in the implant, the lawsuit says.

As a result of her complications arising from the metal on metal hip replacement, the total hip replacement lawsuit claims that Geertrudia suffered lost wages, future loss of earning capacity, past and future medical expenses and permanent harm due to complications that are associated with a hip revision.

“Biomet did not reveal (and instead concealed) their knowledge of numerous and serious complications and other ‘bad data’ during their meetings with the orthopedic surgeons, including Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon,” the total hip replacement lawsuit alleges.

“Had Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s surgery and known that the Magnum Device caused injury and had the potential to require revision surgery to remove the device, with no benefit over traditional hip implants, then neither the Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s surgeon would have chosen the Magnum device for the hip implant surgery.”

The total hip replacement lawsuit continues, “Rather, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s surgeon would have opted for the safer and more effective traditional hip implant utilizing a polyethylene liner.”

Geertrudia has brought forth several counts against the manufacturer including strict products liability for design defect and failure to warn, breach of express warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of implied warranties and violation of California Unfair Competition Law.

She is seeking compensatory damages, special damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment and any further relief deemed proper by the Court.

The Total Hip Replacement Lawsuit is Case No. 3:16-cv-00465 and is part of the Biomet MDL In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No 2391, in the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division.