In a new hip replacement lawsuit, a woman from California alleges her metal hip replacement failed due to defects in her Biomet implant.

Plaintiff Pamela M. says she underwent hip replacement surgery in September 2007, receiving an M2a Magnum hip implant manufactured by defendant Biomet.

Over time, she alleges, friction inside the metal hip replacement shed bits of cobalt-chromium debris into the surrounding tissue, causing pain and limitation of mobility. Blood testing confirmed she had elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in her blood, she says.

Pamela’s complications of hip replacement became severe enough to require revision surgery to remove the failed implant, she says. She claims her revision surgery subjected her to a greater risk of complications than did her original hip replacement.

In addition to her physical injury and need for additional surgery, Pamela now says her complications of hip replacement caused lost wages and future earning capacity, medical expenses, and mental anguish and emotional distress.

Pamela’s Biomet Hip Replacement Lawsuit

Pamela says her experience would have been different had Biomet properly tested the M2a Magnum system and resolved its defects before making it available for use.

She says that the design of the metal hip replacement forces metal parts to work against each other under the full weight of the patient’s body, causing metal particles to shed into the body. This loose metal can cause a reaction inside the hip joint that makes fluid accumulate and causes bone to die, she says.

Pamela’s hip replacement lawsuit says that not long after making the M2a Magnum available, the company began receiving hundreds of reports saying the devices had failed.

In many of these cases, the failure was severe enough to require revision surgery, Pamela says. She says the FDA has on file over 350 reports of adverse events associated with the M2a Magnum.

Based on these readily available reports of complications, Pamela believes Biomet was on ample notice that there was something amiss with the M2a Magnum. She feels the appropriate response from Biomet would have been to take it off the market.

Yet Biomet continued to make and sell the implant, and to actively market it. Pamela says the company’s tacit refusal to recall the device amounts to active concealment of the device’s defects and a misrepresentation that the device is safe and effective.

Pamela’s hip replacement lawsuit alleges that Biomet’s promotion of the M2a Magnum was driven more by profit motive than by concern for patient safety. The complaint alleges that for a few years while the Magnum was on the market, Biomet was courting investors to purchase the company.

Since the Magnum was one of the company’s most profitable products, Pamela says, the company purposely hid what they knew about the implant’s alleged defects so as not to damage investor confidence. Biomet was ultimately purchased by a private equity firm in 2007 for $10 billion, says Pamela.

Pamela’s hip replacement lawsuit is one of many similar claims consolidated into a single multidistrict litigation.

The Biomet Hip Replacement MDL is In Re: Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2391 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.