Hip Implant Lawsuits Abound From Different States

Hip Implant recipients across the country have been pushing for legal
action against the manufacturer of their defective prosthetic hips.
DePuy Orthopaedics, a division of Johnson and Johnson, has been on the
subject of a lot of product liability suits lately from the recipients
of their defective ASR systems, namely the ASR Hip Resurfacing System
and the ASR XL Acetabular system.

The product has been found to be prone to giving excessive pain and
hinder the mobility of the recipient even just months after the
implant procedure. This has led many to investigate on the cause for
this discomfort. It has been found that the all-metal construction for
the ball and socket joint made it possible for both ends to rub
against each other, producing metal ion filings that may harm the host
gravely. This is why many of those who availed of these systems are
now going to court against DePuy, because they believe that the
manufacturer has to stand for what they have put into the market.

The earliest case against DePuy came from North California’s Federal
District Court 17. This was a few months before the August 2010
product recall, where they removed both ASR products from the market.
Class action suits, cases with a single defendant and multiple
plaintiffs, have also been filed against DePuy. Two have been known,
one from Brian Boone of Kentucky, and the other from Carolyn Percy
from Ohio. Carolyn has not even removed her defective implant even
though it gives her so much pain because she fights for a
court-overseen revision procedure paid for by the company.

 All the sad stories do not stop there. A hiker for the better part of
her life, Annie O’ Niell of Gardiner, New York, had undergone the
procedure in order to help her with her arthritis. The implant got
dislodged from her acetabulum, and she was under immense pain before
she had her revision surgery in July. Now she, like many others like
her, is in court to sue DePuy for having let them go through this
ordeal.

Continuing Torts: Stipulation That Can Extend Statutes of Limitation

Hearing about lawsuits, we never get the impression that there is a deadline that the court can accept the filing of the case. In the legal world this is dictated by the statute of limitations, a law much varied from state to state and will dictate when and how long the filing period would stand.

This is a disadvantage to the aggrieved party due to its apparent limitation of the availability of justice for their part. The state to state differences in the interpretation of these statutes of limitation can make it very hard for one to get to grips with their situation first before they are thrust into taking immediate action. Not only can this mean that the opportunity of legal action is denied to them, it also means that those who might have filed in time may not have made a thorough examination and assembly of the evidence they have before they start their lawsuit, subsequently giving them a weaker case.

In light of new findings regarding the “date of injury” for hip replacement cases though, many of the old fears pertaining to deadlines dictated by statutes of limitation have been debunked. The date of injury is the starting period when the deadline dictated by the particular statute of limitation is set.

New interpretations of the date of injury now point out to the fact that a failed hip replacement is constantly giving pain to its wearer, and is known as a continuing tort. Because it is declared as so, the date of injury is reset every day for the recipient, so the extension is infinite as long as it is there residing in the body. But what if they have already removed it? Well, the fact that they had it removed means that they are now aware of the harmful effects of the product, and the date of injury can start from there.