A metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuit claims the device broke in half during daily activity.

Plaintiff Ronald G. of Wisconsin has alleged that his metal-on-metal hip implant was defective.

In the hip replacement lawsuit, Ronald states that surgeons implanted the metal hip implant during hip replacement surgery in March 2005.

The metal hip lawsuit states that Ronald’s hip implant performed until it “suddenly and catastrophically failed,” by breaking into two separate pieces. This allegedly took place in June of 2015. The metal hip implant in question was made by Wright Medical Technology Inc.

The metal-on-metal hip lawsuit states the Ronald was forced to have a revision surgery within days of the failure of his hip implant. A revision surgery is a surgery to replace a broken or otherwise failed hip implant.

During the procedure, pieces of the Wright metal-on-metal hip implant were removed from his body and replaced with a new hip implant. Revision surgery is more technically challenging than an initial hip replacement.

This is because parts of the original hip bones have to be removed and drilled into during the first hip replacement. As such, revision surgeries have less bone to work with when anchoring the new hip implant.

The metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuit holds that Wright marketed a defective hip implant, leading to pain and suffering for Ronald.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Complications

The metal hip replacement lawsuit points out that the model of hip implant put into Ronald was “passed” by the 510(k) provision of FDA rules. The 510(k) rule holds that a medical implant that is “substantially equivalent” to existing technologies can receive FDA clearance without significant testing.

However, the metal-on-metal hip implant lawsuit alleges that the device was defective and Wright knew about this long before Ronald filed his lawsuit.

According to the metal-0n-metal hip lawsuit, there were reports of “clinical failures in the form of fractures of its modular necks that had been implanted in patients in Europe,” since 2001 and that these reports continued for years.

However, the hip lawsuit further alleges, Wright did not notify the FDA that they had heard of the problem until January of 2005, and did not make modifications to their labeling until 2010.

The Wright models of metal-on-metal hip implants may be part of a larger issue. Under the 510(k) loophole, many different companies produced metal-on-metal hip implants.

Metal hip replacement lawsuits have alleged that this type of hip implant has special risks and problems. This has led to recalls and large-scale hip lawsuits against various companies that manufactured these hip joints.

In Ronald’s metal-on-metal hip lawsuit, he alleges that the device’s modular neck is a weak point that causes the implant to fail. Other hip lawsuits have alleged that the grinding of the metal interfacing surfaces can cause the metal to “shave” out microscopic flakes of the metal.

Allegedly, in this form the normally-safe alloys of the implant may more readily dissolve and form toxic metal ions which can lead to inflammation and implant failure. These alleged defects have been reported across different makes and manufacturers’ metal-on-metal hip implants.

The Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Lawsuit is Case No. 2:15-cv-01352-NJ in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division.