Contact us today for a FREE no-obligation initial consultation

law done differently!

Category

Attune

Report: U.S. Knee Implant Market to Thrive Despite Concerns of Failure, Hazard

By | Attune

Knee Implant Lawsuit

Knee Implant Lawsuit: A recent global market analysis concluded the demand for knee replacements in the U.S. expected to continue dramatic growth through 2021, despite ongoing litigation and concerns about early failure and health hazards.

The report, Knee Implants Market: Global Industry Analysis and Market Forecast, cites some of the following factors as playing a significant role in this issue:

  • An aging population in much of the world;
  • Increasing lifespans;
  • More active lifestyles that increase the number of individuals at-risk for knee failure (thus increasing the demand for knee replacement).

As it now stands, the U.S. has the highest share on the market, accounting for more than 60 percent of the world’s knee replacement surgeries and medical devices, with more than 600,000 such injuries annually. One study even predicts there will be 3.5 million knee replacements performed every single year by the time we reach 2030.  Read More

Zimmer Knee Implant Lawsuit

Bellwether Zimmer Knee Implant Lawsuit Loss Has Lessons for Attune Knee Injury Attorneys

By | Attune

A recent bellwether knee implant injury lawsuit was decided in the manufacturer’s favor after an appeals court affirmed an earlier ruling to dismiss for lack of evidence to support causation. Although this ruling pertained to a knee implant made by Zimmer NexGen Flex, it contains some relevant lessons for those pursuing claims for Attune knee implant injuries.Attune knee injury lawyer

In the instant case, one of the main problems was the trial court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s only expert witness testifying that causation (on the basis the doctor’s methods were unreliable because they lacked discernible basis for determining which potential causes of loosening were reasonable and which weren’t). Without that testimony, plaintiff couldn’t prevail on his original claims of defective design or manufacture. It also meant there was a causation gap in his claim of inadequate warning. But to the extent the inadequate warning claim could have survived even without the testimony of that expert witness, the trial court and later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, the inadequate warning claim couldn’t prevail in light of the “learned intermediary” doctrine. This legal theory holds that a medical device manufacturer doesn’t have a duty of care to warn the patient who receives that implant about the risks, so long as it gives adequate warning to the treating physician. The basic principle is that it usually isn’t the patient making the decision of which device to choose, it’s their doctor. Thus, warning the patient wouldn’t make a difference in whether that device was chosen over another one. The learned intermediary doctrine is recognized by most other states – including Utah, with precedent-setting cases here in 1984 with Barson v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. and 2003 with Schaerrer v. Stewart’s Plaza Pharmacy, Inc.

Product liability lawyers and plaintiffs in knee implant injury cases need to carefully consider qualifications and expert witness methods and how they stack up under the Daubert standard, which is the federal judge’s checklist for determining whether scientific testimony passes muster to be admissible.  Read More

Top