Jon Campisi Nov. 25, 2012, 2:03pm

A northeastern Pennsylvania couple has filed a products liability lawsuit against the

makers of an artificial hip replacement system over allegations that the husband experienced undue hardship as a result of having had the device implanted in his body.

Cherry Hill, N.J. attorney Robert M. Silverman, of the firm Weitz & Luxenberg, filed suit Nov. 15 at the federal courthouse in Philadelphia on behalf of Leslie and Allison Caccia, who reside in New Albany, Bradford County.

The defendants are Indiana-based Biomet Inc. and Biomet Orthopedics, which manufacture the M2A Magnum Hip Replacement System.

The plaintiffs allege that Lesie Caccia began experiencing problems after he had the device surgically implanted inside of his body in the summers of 2007 and 2008 respectively at Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Pa.

The first procedure was a right hip resurfacing surgery and the second procedure the following year was a left hip resurfacing surgery.

During both operations, Leslie Caccia received an M2A Magnum PF cup and a ReCap Cemented Femoral Head, the lawsuit states.

Both devices had to be replaced in 2010, the complaint states, because they had become defective inside the man’s body.

The complaint alleges that for more than five years, the defendants have known that their hip replacement device was prone to fail years before its expected life.

Specifically, the allegations are that the implant’s metal ball and socket bearings that make up the hip-joint generate metal debris over time from wear and tear that can spread throughout a patient’s surrounding bone and tissue, resulting in the patient experiencing pain and suffering, as well as a debilitating lack of mobility and inflammation.

Rather than recalling the device amid consumer complaints made to the FDA regarding the defects, or warning physicians and patients about the risks with regard to the device, the defendants continued to “aggressively market the Magnum Device, claiming it was a safe and effective hip replacement system,” the lawsuit states. “Indeed, defendants sought to capitalize on problems of competitor devices by asserting the superiority of the Magnum over said competition.”

The complaint says that the plaintiff would have never suffered from “unnecessary pain and debilitation” had the defendants taken the affirmative step of recalling the device amid the complaints to the FDA.

“However, even if defendants recalled this device today it would come too late for thousands of Americans, including plaintiff, who will now live with the consequences of these faulty devices for the rest of their lives,” the suit states.

The complaint contains counts of negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied and express warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to damages for loss of consortium, interest, attorney’s fees, litigation costs and other relief.


The federal case number is 2:12-cv-06462-CMR. 

More News