Lawsuits are Pending against the Zimmer Durom Cup
July 5th, 2009 Posted by: Maxwell Schmickman
In 2006 Zimmer Durom Cup Hip Implants were approved for use in the United States. Within less than 2 years, more than 12,000 patients were functioning using a Durom Cup as a replacement device for a defective hip joint. Although these implants had been used for 3 years in Europe prior to being approved in the U.S. and had exhibited a high rate of success, in the U.S. patients started developing problems, some almost immediately after surgery. Their doctors, looking for reasons why the implants failed, decided that the Durom Cup was a defective device.
In most U.S. states, laws are in place to help patients who suffer due to defective prosthetic devices. The laws are designed to compensate them for pain, medical expenses, and the loss of wages caused by their problems with orthopedic procedures resulting from a malfunction of a prosthetic device. Zimmer, while not admitting to producing an inferior product based on its success rate in Europe, voluntarily pulled the cup from the U.S. markets in July, 2008 pending further investigation.
By using Google to search the Internet for “Zimmer Durom Cup Lawsuits” you can find many websites of attorneys who feel that patients have a case against Zimmer and offer to help them file lawsuits. The number of implant failures continues to grow, and these attorneys who have taken it upon themselves to become involved truly believe that Zimmer is at fault. Physicians tend to agree and estimate that hundreds of the devices will fail within the next few years.
Doctors who have done further surgery to determine the cause of patient discomfort have found that the cups have loosened over time to the point where they just pop from the sockets at the slightest touch. Other patients have devices which have actually migrated a short distance in their bodies so they are no longer located exactly where they should be. Although Zimmer contends that the rate of failure of the Durom Cup is quite low, physicians believe that hundreds of them will fail and need revision within the next few years.
Zimmer stockholders take the position that Zimmer should have announced a suspension of U.S. sales before January 22, 2008 instead of waiting until July. Because of this belief, they have filed a class action lawsuit in Indiana requesting damages for those investors who purchased stock between January 22 and July, 2008 when the product was finally pulled from the market.
Zimmer is still taking the position that its product is not defective. Instead they believe that the inadequate training given to physicians prior to performing the procedure is to blame. With this in mind, Zimmer announced in October, 2008 that it would be setting aside $47.5 million in order to pay off lawsuits resulting from the surgical failures referring to a July report which said that as much as 5.7% of the surgeries could require revision. This fund has been earmarked to pay for “revisions associated with surgeries that predate the company’s voluntary suspension and which also occur within two years of the original surgery date.
