A DePuy hip replacement lawsuit was filed in January by an Illinois woman alleging her hip implant was defective and caused complications following a hip replacement surgery.

Plaintiff Brenda C. alleges in the DePuy hip replacement lawsuit that her Pinnacle hip implant was defective, resulting in severe pain in her hip, necessitating revision surgery and a new implant. Brenda claims that the Defendants knowingly sold their device without proper testing.

The Pinnacle Hip Implant Device was launched by DePuy in 2001. It was designed and marketed to provide pain relief and a consistent range of motion for patients. The device is comprised of metal components and liners to avoid bone-on-metal articulation. The cobalt-chromium metal liner of the hip socket is branded by the defendants as “Ultamet.”

Brenda received a DePuy hip implant in her left hip in December 2007 and another in her right hip in August 2008. By this time, DePuy already received reports that the Pinnacle Hip Implant had failed for some patients but did not disclose that information.

In February 2016, Brenda says she began to experience severe pain in both of her hip joints. Her physician tested Brenda’s blood, which revealed high levels of chromium and cobalt, both metals used in the Pinnacle Hip Implant.

Brenda then had to undergo two revision surgeries, one on her right hip in March 2016 and one on her left hip in December 2016. Revision surgeries are generally more complex than original hip replacement surgery and have a higher risk of complications.

The DePuy hip replacement lawsuit alleges that despite the Pinnacle Device being a Class III medical device, DePuy did not seek premarket approval from the FDA. Class III medical devices operate to sustain human life or prevent impairment of human health. The FDA requires Class III medical devices to undergo premarket approval by the FDA. This includes clinical investigations and trials that are then submitted to the FDA for review. Brenda alleges that had DePuy participated in a full clinical investigation, the defects of their Pinnacle device would have been discovered, avoiding complications in patients such as herself.

Brenda claims in her DePuy hip replacement lawsuit that DePuy was negligent by releasing their Pinnacle implant into the market and should be liable for all damages caused by its defects. “At all times herein mentioned, the Pinnacle Device’s unsafe, defective, and inherently dangerous condition was a cause of injury to Plaintiff” alleges the DePuy hip replacement lawsuit.

Additionally, Brenda alleges that DePuy fraudulently concealed the information about the Pinnacle devices.

“Since 2007/2008, Defendants have had actual knowledge that the Pinnacle Devices could fail early thereby giving rise to unnecessary pain and suffering, debilitation, and the need for a revision surgery to replace the device with the attendant risks of complications and death from such further surgery” claims the lawsuit. DePuy allegedly failed to disclose this information instead of taking steps to prevent physicians and consumers from learning about the factual problems with the Pinnacle device.

Brenda seeks a trial by jury for negligence, six counts of strict products liability, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. She also seeks compensation for damages, medical expenses, disfigurement, emotional distress, and pain.

The DePuy Hip Replacement Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-01046-SLD-JEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.