After needing a dual hip implant revision surgery on Aug. 18, 2017, plaintiff Frances P. has filed a new lawsuit in a federal court in Illinois.

The hip implant revision surgery was scheduled approximately eight years after the original bilateral total hip arthroscopies, which occurred within a few months of one another on May 7, 2009 and Nov. 5, 2009.

Upon failure of these prosthetic systems leading to subsequent dual hip implant revision, the plaintiff is seeking damages for injuries sustained from DePuy Orthopedics Inc., an Indiana corporation with its primary headquarters located in Warsaw, Ind. DePuy is a subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.

Frances is a citizen and resident of the state of Illinois, living in Chicago. After being implanted with the two DePuy Pinnacle hip prosthetic systems, she claims she experienced health complications which, upon further investigation, were related to toxic blood levels of cobalt and chromium in her blood.

The femoral head and acetabular cup in the DePuy Pinnacle system are both made of a combination of cobalt and chromium. It is believed that the toxic blood levels, also known as metallosis, were related to a shedding of debris caused by the constant friction in the metal-on-metal system.

In addition to the decline in her health related to the blood poisoning, Frances P. says she also experienced a squeaking sound with ambulation in both hip joints. The complainant seeks more than $75,000 in compensation for her injuries and to assist with costs related to the dual hip implant revision which she had to bear.

She holds DePuy Orthopedics responsible for advertising the prosthetic system as “uniquely designed to meet the needs of active patients” while seemingly hiding the fact that the acetabular cup had a tendency to loosen or detach from the natural cavity of the acetabulum and that metallosis frequently followed implantation.

The plaintiff is bringing the following counts against DePuy in this products liability lawsuit: Count One—Strict Products Liability, Design Defect, Left Hip; Count Two—Strict Products Liability, Failure to Warn, Left Hip; Count Three—Products Liability, Negligence, Left Hip; and Count Four—Products Liability, Breach of Warranty, Left Hip.

Frances is also bringing these additional counts against DePuy because of the need for the hip implant revision surgery: Count Five—Strict Products Liability, Design Defect, Right Hip; Count Six—Strict Products Liability, Failure to Warn, Right Hip; Count Seven—Products Liability, Negligence, Right Hip; Count Eight—Products Liability, Breach of Warranty, Right Hip.

The complainant in this hip implant revision surgery lawsuit is asking for damages for her pain and suffering that seems just according to evidence presented in the trial. She is asking for more than $75,000 plus the return of litigation costs.