The complaint was filed on July 16 in Los Angeles by James Cabral, 57, from Victorville, California. Cabral received the Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement implant in early 2008. In July of that year, sales of the metal-on-metal hip implant were suspended due to an unexpectedly high failure rate. Sales resumed several months later after Zimmer improved the warnings and instructions that accompany the device.

According to Cabral’s lawsuit, he suffered severe and constant pain for 18 months and will require surgery to remove and replace the hip implant. Cabral alleges that the implant has negatively affected his active lifestyle and says he often has to use a cane for support.

Last month, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to consolidate and centralize all lawsuits over the Zimmer hip replacement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial litigation. At that time, 45 cases had been filed in federal courts throughout the United States. However, as additional cases are filed by Zimmer Durom Cup injury lawyers in federal court, they will be transferred to New Jersey for coordinated handling.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was first introduced in the United States in 2006, as a more advanced form of an artificial hip. The hip resurfacing system is designed out of a single piece of material and is supposed to avoid problems associated with traditional hip replacement components, such as instability, limited range of motion and wear of the bearing.

Shortly after Zimmer introduced the Durom Cup in the United States, concerns emerged about a high number of hip replacement failures involving the hip implant, where the component loosened and required revision surgery. A temporary Zimmer Durom Cup recall was issued in July 2008, so that revisions could be made to the product’s warnings and instructions to ensure that doctors were properly trained on the surgical techniques needed to implant the artificial hip correctly.

Approximately 12,000 individuals had the Zimmer Durom Cup system implanted in their hip between 2006 and 2008. While Zimmer’s own estimates in 2008 suggested that some doctors have experienced failure rates as high as 5.7%, more recent claims suggest that the Durom Cup failure rate is between 20% and 30%.

As of the end of last year, more than 500 adverse event reports have been filed with the FDA regarding Zimmer Durom Cup problems and many experts anticipate that the rate of hip cup loosenings could increase as time passes after the surgery.

In an investigative story in the New York Times, Dr. Richard A. Berger indicates that his relationship with the company disintegrated after he voiced concerns over the safety and durability of the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex. Dr. Berger claims that when he pointed out that the adhesive-free version of the implant was not fusing to patients’ bones as it should, the company told him that the problem lay with his inability to implant the knee device properly.

Zimmer reportedly paid Dr. Berger more than $8 million over 10 years for orthopedic consultation, then the medical device manufacturer unexpectedly ended its relationship with the doctor last year, the Times reports. The company claims that the decision not to renew his contract was just a regular rotation of consultants, but many believe the action underscores the consequences such prominent doctors face when they speak out against medical device manufacturers who pay them large consulting fees.

Recently, Dr. Berger and another surgeon presented a study at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annual conference in New Orleans, which suggested that the Zimmer NexGen knee replacement problems resulted in nearly a 10% failure rate.

In early 2008, Zimmer made similar attempts to shift blame for problems with their products to the surgical technique of the doctor. Dr. Larry Dorr, a prominent Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon, presented data to members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons in April 2008 about a higher-than-expected rate of revisions among patients who received the Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement. After initially dismissing Dr. Dorr’s concerns and blaming the surgical technique, Zimmer eventually conducted their own investigation and acknowledged the problems.

A temporary Zimmer Durom Cup recall was issued in July 2008 so that changes could be made to the warnings and instructions provided with the product. The company now faces a number of Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits filed by individuals who have experienced problems with the hip replacement.

Following the release of Dr. Berger’s study, some product liability lawyers have begun investigating potential Zimmer NexGen replacement knee lawsuits for individuals who have experienced complications, such as loosening of the knee implant or the need for further revision surgery.

Dr. Berger says he has shifted away from the use of Zimmer products after his experience, telling the New York Times that he no longer has confidence in the company’s products.

The Panel’s order, issued June 9, will result in 45 Zimmer hip replacement lawsuits currently pending in 7 different federal courts across the country being transferred to Judge Susan D. Wigenton in New Jersey. The Panel determined that the cases should be consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL, since they involve sufficiently common questions of fact. Since most of the cases were already pending in New Jersey federal court, the Panel determined that was the most reasonable location for centralization.

The product liability claims involve allegations that problems with Zimmer Durom Cup hip implants were caused by defects in the design and manufacture of the components and due to Zimmer’s failure to provide adequate warnings about the device.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was first introduced in the United States in 2006, as a more advanced form of an artificial hip. The hip resurfacing system is designed out of a single piece of material and is supposed to avoid problems associated with traditional hip replacement components, such as instability, limited range of motion and wear of the bearing.

Shortly after Zimmer introduced the Durom Cup in the United States, concerns emerged about a high number of hip replacement failures involving the hip implant, where the component loosened and required revision surgery. A temporary Zimmer Durom Cup recall was issued in July 2008, so that revisions could be made to the product’s warnings and instructions to ensure that doctors were properly trained on the surgical techniques needed to implant the artificial hip correctly.

Approximately 12,000 individuals had the Zimmer Durom Cup system implanted in their hip between 2006 and 2008. While Zimmer’s own estimates suggested that some doctors have experienced failure rates as high as 5.7%, the plaintiffs claim that about 14% of those who have had the Durom Cup hip replacement implanted have required hip revision surgery.

As of the end of last year, more than 500 adverse event reports have been filed with the FDA regarding Zimmer Durom Cup problems and many experts anticipate that the rate of hip cup loosenings could increase as time passes after the surgery.

Although there are only 45 currently pending federal lawsuits over problems with Zimmer Durom Cup hip implants, it is expected that the number of cases will increase in coming months. Additional cases are still being investigated and reviewed by Zimmer Durom Cup lawyers, and as new cases are filed in federal court they will be transferred to the MDL in New Jersey.

Zimmer opposed centralization of the cases, arguing that the cases involve multiple individualized fact issues and that creation of an MDL might derail their attempts to reach Durom Cup settlements without the expenditure of substantial time and resources. The MDL Panel disagreed, indicating that centralization was appropriate to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on discovery and to conserve the resources of the parties, attorneys and the courts.

“Centralization should pose no realistic obstacle to Zimmer’s settlement efforts,” wrote Judge John G Heyburn, Chairman of the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, in the order. “Should the parties to one or more actions believe that early resolution through mediation or other means is possible, they are free to approach the transferee judge to adjust the pretrial schedule accordingly.”

While the pretrial management of the cases in an MDL is in many ways similar to how a Zimmer Durom Cup class action lawsuit would be handled, each claim will still remain an individual lawsuit that would be returned back to the jurisdiction where it was originally filed for trial if it does not settle or otherwise resolve during pretrial litigation.

A report based on the survey, “Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: Bad Idea, or Just Bad Press?” by Millennium Research Group (MRG) has been published in Physician Forum, an MRG publication. The survey found that a “significant” minority of surgeons plan to reduce their use of metal hip implants over the next year, according to a press release by the researchers.

Health care professionals have increasingly been finding a growing number of metal-on-metal hip implant complications. Particles from the artificial hips can damage soft tissue around the implant, cause inflammatory reactions and lead to bone loss. Doctors have also found that many of the metal hip implants do not seem to settle correctly into the ball-and-cup arrangement, leading to pain and discomfort for implant recipients.

MRG researchers surveyed 150 orthopedic surgeons and found that clinical focus and negative media attention to the problems with metal hip implants have influenced their decisions. According to MRG researchers, those surgeons will likely turn to alternatives such as ceramic-on-polyethylene hip implants. However, most surgeons were still satisfied with metal hip implant performance, the survey found.

All of the major orthopedic medical device companies manufacture their own version of “metal on metal” hip implants, and several have maintained that the metallic debris problem does not pose a significant risk. However, in a recent editorial in the Journal of Arthroplasty, doctors were warned to avoid the use of metal hip implants, and said they should only be used “with great caution.”

In March, reports linked a particularly high failure rate to the DePuy ASR metal hip replacement system, which is now set to be phased off of the market. In the U.S., the FDA has received about 300 complaints of complications with the DePuy ASR hip implant since the beginning of 2008. Most of those involved situations where patients required additional surgery to replace the DePuy ASR hip.

A number of individuals who have experienced problems with their DePuy metal hip are now reviewing the potential for DePuy ASR hip replacement lawsuits against the manufacturer, alleging that the hip implant was defectively designed and was sold with inadequate warnings about the risk of complications.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to meet today in Chicago to consider whether 48 Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits pending in 10 different federal district courts should be centralized for pretrial proceedings before one judge as part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

The hearing was scheduled after a motion was filed in March by a group of plaintiffs who requested that the Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement litigation be centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. All of the cases involve similar allegations of injuries caused by the Durom Cup hip implant, which was temporarily recalled nearly two years ago due to a high number of reported hip replacement failures with the Zimmer implant.

Consolidation of the Zimmer hip replacement lawsuits before one judge would eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid contradictory rulings and serve the convenience of the court, witnesses and parties, according the motion. While the pretrial management of the cases in an MDL is often similar to how a Zimmer Durom Cup class action lawsuit would be handled, each claim would still remain an individual lawsuit that would be returned back to the jurisdiction where it was originally filed for trial if it does not settle or otherwise resolve during pretrial litigation.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was first introduced in the United States in 2006, as a more advanced form of an artificial hip. The hip resurfacing system is designed out of a single piece of material and is supposed to avoid problems associated with traditional hip replacement components, such as instability, limited range of motion and wear of the bearing.

Shortly after Zimmer introduced the Durom Cup in the United States, concerns emerged about a high number of hip replacement failures involving the hip implant, where the component loosened and required revision surgery. A temporary Zimmer Durom Cup recall was issued in July 2008, so that revisions could be made to the product’s warnings and instructions to ensure that doctors were properly trained on the surgical techniques needed to implant the artificial hip correctly.

Approximately 12,000 individuals had the Zimmer Durom Cup system implanted in their hip between 2006 and 2008. While Zimmer’s own estimates suggested that some doctors have experienced failure rates as high as 5.7%, the plaintiffs claim that about 14% of those who have had the Durom Cup hip replacement implanted have required hip revision surgery.

As of the end of last year, more than 500 adverse event reports have been filed with the FDA regarding problems with the Zimmer Durom Cup and many experts anticipate that the rate of hip cup loosenings could increase as time passes after the surgery.

If the Judicial Panel decides to form an MDL for the pretrial proceedings, all pending cases would be transferred to the judge assigned to preside over the litigation. In addition, as Zimmer Durom Cup lawyers investigate and file new federal cases in the future, they will also be transferred to the MDL for coordinated handling.

In recent months, concerns have emerged about similar problems associated with a different type of implant, known as metal-on-metal hip implants. Earlier this year, DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced that it was removing its DePuy ASR hip replacement system from the market. While the company initially claimed the removal was due to low sales, on March 6 they sent a letter warning doctors that many patients have experienced hip failures soon after the devices were implanted.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is expected to announce an official review of metal hip implants this week.

European health officials say that it appears that metal particles may shed into the body as a result of wear and tear on the implants, potentially causing the growth of non-cancerous tumors in the surrounding tissue, particularly in young women. Metal hip replacement problems also appear to cause damage to sinew and tissue in the areas where they are shed, reviewers say.

There are about 40,000 people in the U.K. who have received metal-on-metal hip replacement implants. The MRHA is expected to announce that any considered at risk will be given a blood test looking for high levels of metal compounds in their blood; a sign that their metal-on-metal hip implant may be shedding debris. If the high levels are found, it is possible they will have their implant replaced.

Health care professionals have increasingly been warning about metal-on-metal hip implant complications. The particles can damage soft tissue, cause inflammatory reactions and lead to bone loss. They are also concerned that many of them do not seem to settle correctly into the ball-and-cup arrangement, leading to pain and discomfort for implant recipients.

Last month, reports linked a particularly high failure rate to the DePuy ASR metal hip replacement system, which is now set to be phased off of the market. In the U.S., the FDA has received about 300 complaints of DePuy ASR hip problems since the beginning of 2008. Most of those involved situations where patients required additional surgery to replace the DePuy ASR hip implant.

Attorneys in the U.S. are now reviewing the potential for DePuy ASR metal hip replacement lawsuits for people who have suffered complications due to defective DePuy ASR implants.

Last year, U.K. researchers studied 660 patients who had received metal hip implants from DePuy Orthopaedics and found that 3.4 percent suffered from adverse reactions to metal debris. Surgeons are warning that one to three percent of all metal on metal hip implant recipients may experience hip implant problems, and possibly need to have the devices replaced, due to metallic debris. In 2008, the MRHA determined that some metal-on-metal hip implants could lead to genetic damage.

All of the major orthopedic medical device companies manufacture their own version of “metal on metal” hip implants, and several have said that the metallic debris problem does not pose a significant risk. However, in a recent editorial in the Journal of Arthroplasty, doctors were warned to avoid the use of metal hip implants, and said they should only be used “with great caution.”

A motion was filed last month with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that at least 51 product liability lawsuits currently pending in ten different states involving the Zimmer Durom Cup be centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. All of the cases involve similar allegations of injuries caused by a defective Durom Cup implainted as part of a hip replacement surgery.

Consolidating the federal Zimmer Durom Cup litigation before one judge would eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid contradictory rulings and serve the convenience of the court, witnesses and parties, according the motion. While the pretrial management of the cases in an MDL is often similar to how a Zimmer Durom Cup class action suit would be handled, each claim would still remain an individual lawsuit that would be returned back to the jurisdiction where it was originally filed for trial if it does not settle or otherwise resolve during pretrial litigation.

The Zimmer Durom Cup was first introduced in the United States in 2006, as a more advanced form of an artificial hip. The hip resurfacing system is designed out of a single piece of material and is designed to avoid problems associated with traditional hip replacement components, such as instability, limited range of motion and wear of the bearing.

However, after it was introduced in the United States, concerns emerged about a high number of hip replacement failures involving the Durom Cup, where the component loosened and required revision surgery. A temporary Zimmer Durom Cup recall was issued in July 2008, so that revisions could be made to the product’s warnings and instructions to ensure that doctors were properly trained on the surgical techniques needed to implant the artificial hip correctly.

Approximately 12,000 individuals had the Zimmer Durom Cup system implanted in their hip between 2006 and 2008. While Zimmer’s own estimates in July 2008 suggested that some doctors have experienced failure rates as high as 5.7%, the petition says that 14% of those who have had the Durom Cup hip replacement implanted have required hip revision surgery. As of the end of last year, more than 500 adverse event reports have been filed with the FDA regarding problems with the Zimmer Durom Cup and many experts anticipate that the rate of hip cup loosenings could increase as time passes after the surgery.

If the Judicial Panel decides to form an MDL for the pretrial proceedings, all pending cases would be transferred to the judge assigned to preside over the litigation. In addition, as Zimmer Durom Cup lawyers investigate and file new federal cases in the future, they will also be transferred to the MDL for coordinated handling.

In recent months, concerns have emerged about similar problems associated with a different type of implant, known as metal-on-metal hip implants. Last month, DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson & Johnson, announced that it was removing its DePuy ASR hip replacement system from the market. While the company initially claimed the removal was due to low sales, on March 6 they sent a letter warning doctors that many patients have experienced hip failures soon after the devices were implanted.

At the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons annual conference in New Orleans earlier this month, data was presented by a group of knee surgeons at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, who said that design problems with the Zimmer NexGen knee replacement has caused an abnormally high rate of loosening that often requires additional revision surgery.

The orthopedic surgeons looked at the two year results of 108 knee replacement surgeries involving the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral knee replacement system, which uses a component that attaches to the bottom of the thigh bone without traditional cement to glue it in place. The researchers found that nearly 9% required revision surgery and that 36% showed signs of the replacement knee loosening, concluding that the Zimmer NexGen knee problems were linked to the design of the implant, and were not related to the surgeon, the surgical approach or the type of patient receiving the knee implant.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, surgeons have previously brought these issues to Zimmer’s attention and called for the company to remove their NexGen knee replacement product from the market. However, Zimmer Holdings, Inc. has not been responsive to their request and issued a statement standing behind the safety of the NexGen CR-Flex Porous component after the data was presented.

Zimmer has previously faced criticism over the design of their Durom Cup hip implants, which are used during hip replacement surgery and have been associated with a number of complications. In July 2008, a temporary Zimmer Durom Cup recall was issued after the company acknowledged that some doctors experienced high failure rates with the artificial hip implant.

Prior to the recall of that hip implant, the device maker dismissed reports of problems with the Durom Cup, leading a prominent Los Angeles orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Larry Dorr, to present data to members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons in April 2008 about the higher-than-expected rate of revisions with the Durom Cup. Zimmer then conducted an investigation and found that some surgeons were experiencing hip failure rates as high as 5.7%, leading them to pull the artificial hip from the market until further warnings and instructions on special surgical techniques needed to implant the Durom Cup. The company now faces a number of lawsuits from hip replacement patients who experienced problems with the Zimmer Durom cup, and have reportedly reached settlements in some of the cases.

Since the data was presented earlier this month about the Zimmer knee replacement problems, some product liability lawyers have begun investigation potential Zimmer NexGen replacement knee lawsuits for individuals who have experienced complications, such as loosening of the knee implant or revision surgery.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, the company said it had been informed by FDA that it satisfied issues raised in a 2007 warning letter over quality issues in its reconstructive implant factory in Mahwah, New Jersey. However, the announcement does not mention two remaining outstanding warnings from FDA over manufacturing in Ireland or how the company sterilized its discontinued cranial implant kits.

The warning letter for the New Jersey facility was issued on November 28, 2007, when FDA inspectors found that quality control failures contributed to problems with Stryker Trident hip implants, including the presence of staph infections causing bacteria and other quality control issues. The issues included reports of patients who continued to experience discomfort and pain after hip replacement surgery, improper wear of the hip implants and squeaking Trident hips. The warning letter was one of several the company has been battling to resolve.

According to a 2008 study in the Journal of Arthroplasty, about 7% of individuals who received ceramic hip implants from 2003 to 2005 developed squeaking hips, compared with no reports of squeaking among the control group who received metal and plastic hip parts. A number of Stryker Trident hip lawsuits have been filed by individuals who experienced the squeaking hip implants or other problems. The lawsuits allege that Stryker negligently designed the hip implant and failed to adequately warn about the risk that individuals may end up with a hip that squeaks. In many cases, plaintiffs have required additional hip surgery to replace components.

The most recent FDA warning letter sent to Stryker, which was issued in May 2009, involved a custom cranial implant kit that has since been discontinued. The FDA said Stryker did not get proper approval for that device as well before releasing it to the market. In December 2008, Stryker issued a recall for the cranial implant kits, saying that the devices may not be sterile and could pose a risk of serious infections for individuals who received the implants to correct traumas or defects in the jaw and face or cranium and face.

In March 2007, an FDA warning letter was issued about quality levels at the Ireland plant, indicating that the company failed to fix problematic products and known risks.

In October, Stryker announced that it had resolved a fourth warning issued by FDA inspectors who said that the company did not get the proper FDA approval for the OP-1 implant, a bone growth material meant for use as an alternative to autografting. The agency also expressed concerns over Institutional Review Board (IRB) documents that appeared to have been falsified by Stryker sales personnel.

While the company initially indicated that the DePuy ASR hip cup was being phased out due to low sales numbers, a letter was sent to doctors on March 6 warning about a potential risk of ASR hip replacement problems. Many patients have experienced hip failures soon after the device was implanted, leading to an additional expensive and painful hip replacement surgery.

According to a report by the New York Times, some medical experts have said that a DePuy ASR cup recall should have been issued earlier, claiming that the failures are linked to a design problem that makes them difficult to implant.

DePuy officials say that ASR hip implant failures are most likely to occur in patients of smaller stature, including women and individuals with weak bones. The FDA has received complaints from about 300 recipients since 2008, most of whom had to undergo another round of hip surgery to replace the defective ASR hip implants.

The ASR is a metal-on-metal hip replacement system. Health care professionals have increasingly been warning about problems with metal-on-metal hip implants, which can shed metal particles into the body. The particles can damage soft tissue, cause inflammatory reactions and lead to bone loss.

Last year, U.K. researchers studied 660 patients who had received metal hip implants from DePuy Orthopaedics and found that 3.4 percent suffered from adverse reactions to metal debris. Surgeons are warning that one to three percent of all metal on metal hip implant recipients may experience hip implant problems, and possibly need to have the devices replaced, due to metallic debris.

DePuy announced it would phase the devices out by late 2010. However, the hip implants have already been put into thousands of people’s bodies worldwide. DePuy said the withdrawal was not caused by the problems, saying that the failure rate was new information.

All of the major orthopedic medical device companies manufacture their own version of “metal on metal” hip implants, and several have said that the metallic debris problem does not pose a significant risk. However, an increasing number of orthopaedic surgeons and experts disagree. In a recent editorial in the Journal of Arthroplasty, the medical journal warned doctors to avoid the use of the metal hip implants, and said they should only be used “with great caution.”

As a result of the increased reports of problems, product liability lawyers are investigating and reviewing potential DePuy ASR metal hip replacement lawsuits for individuals who received the device and experienced complications, including hip replacement failure or other hip problems.