A man from Illinois claims Biomet Inc.’s failure to warn about the risks associated with its hip implants caused him to need additional hip replacement surgery.

Plaintiff Thomas K. claims defendants Biomet Inc. and its related companies have known for years that their M2A-38 metal on metal hip replacement system sheds metal debris that can spread throughout the patient’s surrounding tissue, causing painful and troublesome complications.

But despite the defendants’ knowledge of the problem, Thomas says, they continued to market the system as being a safe and effective option for hip replacement surgery.

Thomas says he underwent bilateral hip replacement surgery in November 2010, receiving Biomet-manufactured implants in each hip. His Biomet lawsuit says he later suffered “permanent harm by severe metal poisoning and metallosis from the metal debris” produced by the implants.

As a result of his metal poisoning from hip replacement, Thomas had to undergo revision surgery in May 2016 to remedy his failed right hip implant. He says he will also have to have revision surgery performed on his left hip.

Plaintiff: Defects Led to Further Hip Replacement Surgery

According to Thomas’s hip replacement surgery lawsuit, the M2A-38 implant system is what the industry describes as a metal on metal hip replacement system.

Thomas says this design diverges from more conventional implant designs that use a plastic or polyethylene liner.

He says the metal on metal devices were marketed as being more durable than the older designs that used a non-metal liner. He quotes promotional material that described the M2A-38 as offering “maximum range of motion, stability, and minimal wear.”

But instead of being a truly superior product, Thomas says, the M2A-38 and other metal on metal hip replacement implants have been implicated in reports that they shed cobalt and chromium particles into the tissue surrounding the implant site, leading to metal poisoning from hip replacement.

He alleges that during normal use and wear, the implant’s metal femoral head and metal acetabular cup generate metal debris by rubbing against each other, causing complications related to metal poisoning.

These complications may result in the need for revision surgery to remove the implants, as Thomas says they did in his case.

He says that revision surgery forces the patient to confront a greater risk of complications than the original hip replacement surgery did: revision is technically more difficult, and the recovery time is longer, he says.

He also claims that after hip implant failure and subsequent revision surgery, future attempts at hip replacement are less likely to be successful.

Thomas now claims that any warning that defendant Biomet provided with its hip implants failed to give him and his physicians adequate notice of the true risks involved.

He says that if he had he been aware of the device’s associated risks and the availability of safer and more reliable alternatives, neither he nor his original implanting surgeon would have chosen the M2A-38 for his initial hip replacement surgery.

Thomas’s Biomet lawsuit is raising claims based on theories of defective design and manufacture, inadequate warning, breach of warranty, negligence, and misrepresentation. He seeks an award of damages in excess of $75,000, plus court costs and interest.

The Biomet Hip Replacement Surgery Lawsuit is filed within In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2391 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.