Centralization of Zimmer Durom Cup Litigation Sought in Federal Court

Three plaintiffs with Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits pending in federal court, are asking that dozens of other similar claims involving injuries from the allegedly defective hip implant be consolidated and centralized before one judge for pretrial proceedings as a part of a multidistrict litigation, or MDL.

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.

Did You Know?

Millions of Philips CPAP Machines Recalled

Philips DreamStation, CPAP and BiPAP machines sold in recent years may pose a risk of cancer, lung damage and other injuries.

Learn More

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.


"*" indicates required fields

Share Your Comments

I authorize the above comments be posted on this page*

Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.