UK Injury Compensation News

The first Multi District Litigation DePuy hip implant case – which will establish a benchmark of how much compensation for a faulty DePuy hip implant many thousands of claimants should be entitled to receive – is set to be heard in May.

Judge David A. Katz announced that the “Bellwether” trial of Faye Dorney-Madgitz v DePuy Orthopaedics (MDL2197) will be heard in May at the Ohio Northern District Court in Cleveland, with a secondary case – Ann McCracken v DePuy Orthopaedics – to start in July 2013 should the Dorney-Madgitz DePuy hip implant case be settled before it goes to trial.

The setting of a date is expected to accelerate DePuy Orthopaedics´ attempts to negotiate a settlement with claimants in the Multi District Litigation (MDL), after the company successfully settled three ASR hip replacement claims in Nevada for around $200,000 each. If the “Bellwether” Dorney-Madgitz v DePuy hip implant case proceeds to court, future settlements of compensation for faulty DePuy hip replacements could be influenced by the verdict of a jury.

The only possible advantage of DePuy Orthopaedics proceeding to court is that, should the jury in Cleveland establish a low benchmark in the settlement of DePuy hip implant claims, the company would save hundreds of millions of dollars in future settlements. Whether or not this is a risk that DePuy Orthopaedics are willing to take prior to their May court date remains to be seen.

DePuy Orthopaedics recently settled a class-action suit in Australia for their recalled LCS Duofix Femoral knee implant which is expected to have cost the company more than AU$10 million and it has been estimated by Professor Eric Gordon, a pharmaceutical industry expert from the University of Michigan, that the total cost of settling the 6,000 outstanding DePuy MDL cases could exceed $2 billion.

Settlement of a class action suit, claiming compensation for faulty DePuy knee implants, has been approved by a judge in Australia´s Federal Court enabling compensation payments to commence.

The class action suit was started in March 2010 by Pamela Casey, who was just one of a number of claimants who had undergone revision surgery due to the failure of the DePuy LCS Duofix Femoral knee implant. The knee implant was subject to a worldwide recall in July 2009 after higher than anticipated failure rates were identified in Australia – possibly due to Alumina particles within the implant causing pain and swelling around the knee joint.

Under the terms of the settlement, DePuy are to pay A$30,000 to claimants who underwent one revision to the faulty knee implant but required no further surgery. Claimants who needed two or more surgical procedures following the initial revision surgery are to receive A$65,000, and claimants who have experienced significant complications or loss of amenity will have their claims for faulty DePuy knee implant compensation assessed on an individual basis.

Justice Robert Buchanan approved the compensation agreement – which had been struck in August in the Pamela Joan Casey v. DePuy International Ltd class action lead case – after reviewing 430 inquiries into the proposed settlement. He stated in his summing up that none of the few complaints he received gave reason not to approve the settlement of compensation for faulty DePuy knee implants.

More than 5,000 DePuy LCS Duofix Femoral implants were used in Australia prior to the product recall, and DePuy also face an ongoing Australian lawsuit over their recalled ASR hip replacement systems.

The three Nevada-based ASR hip replacement claims against DePuy Orthopaedics, which were scheduled to be the first jury cases to be heard against the company, have been settled out of court.

Annelise Rundle (74), Martha Bender (69) and Katherine Guy (60) from Las Vegas in Nevada had all undergone DePuy ASR hip replacement surgery within the past six years, and all three had to have revision surgery when their DePuy hip implants failed.

Medical tests on Annelise Rundle determined she had also had health issues associated with the metal filings which had been displaced from the faulty hip replacement, while doctor´s testing Martha Bender discovered evidence of bone damage from the device.

The three DePuy ASR hip replacement claims are reported to have been settled by DePuy Orthopaedics´ parent company Johnson and Johnson for approximately $200,000 each – lower than what might have been anticipated according to Professor Eric Gordon, a pharmaceutical industry expert from the University of Michigan.

Professor Gordon said “J&J should have expected to pay in the $200,000-to-$500,000 range per case” and the company will have been satisfied with the outcome of the settlement considering that there are more than 2,000 cases outstanding in the States of California, Maryland and Nevada, and 6,000 more consolidated into a Multi District Litigation which should commence in the spring of 2013.

Johnson and Johnson would not comment on whether they were intending to settle future ASR hip replacement claims prior to scheduled court hearings.

The South African Manufacturer of Bumbo Baby Seats has announced a major recall of its product following claims of Bumbo Baby Seat injuries to scores of young children.

The recall of Bumbo Baby Seats – which are marketed in the UK as Bumbo Baby Sitters and cost around 40 pounds from baby stores and online retail outlets – follows a large number of complaints to the American Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) concerning the ease at which active babies can wriggle out of the seats and expose themselves to the risk of injury.

Previous safety warnings have been issued by the CPSC concerning the Bumbo Baby Seats which includes advice to parents not to use the Bumbo range of products on any elevated surface – advice which resulted in Bumbo recalling more than one million Bumbo Baby Sitters in 2007 in order to add labels warning parents of the risks associated with using the seat at table height.

Despite the warnings, the volume of claims of Bumbo Baby Seat injuries has continued – including some concerning children who had suffered skull fractures due to tumbling backwards out of the Bumbo Baby Seat while the seat was placed on the floor. These latest reports prompted the CPSC to issue a further warning to American consumers in November 2011 and the recently announced recall.

Bumbo Baby Seats are in future to be fitted with a safety harness to reduce the risk of injury, and concerned parents in the UK are advised to stop using the sitter immediately, contact the store from which they purchased their Bumbo Baby Sitter and obtain a “repair kit”.

Whereas the Bumbo Baby Seat recall is confined to the USA and Canada at present, it is likely to extend to the UK and Europe within a short period of time, and parents who have their own claims of Bumbo Baby Seat injuries in the UK should speak with a solicitor as soon as possible.

Following the latest status conference in Ohio between solicitors representing victims of the recalled DePuy Orthopaedics faulty hip replacement systems, the first DePuy hip replacement court cases are to be scheduled for December 2012.

However, this first round of DePuy court cases will not be filed by claimants in the multi-district litigation (MDL) but, in a coordinated plan between solicitors, by individual claimants in the States of Nevada (December 2012), Maryland (January 2013) and Illinois (February 2013).

Depending on the outcome of the initial litigation, “Bellwether Trials” – where claimants are randomly selected from the MDL – will commence in May 2013 and June 2013 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, and be presided over by the Honourable David A. Katz.

It is hoped with this schedule of DePuy hip replacement court cases, settlement figures can be determined which will reflect the suffering of those who have received faulty hip replacement systems and which will adequately compensate for  the pain of revision surgery as well as account for loss of earnings, medical costs and travel expenses.

Unlike class action lawsuits – where a claimant receives a proportion of the total award – each individual claim for DePuy hip replacement compensation will be assessed on its own merits, with different amounts being awarded according to the level of physical pain and suffering which has been experienced, loss of amenity due to the receipt of a faulty hip replacement system and special damages for loss of earnings and other out-of-pocket expenses.

Should this series of DePuy hip replacement court cases deliver awards which are of acceptable value to the legal representatives of those making DePuy hip replacement compensation claims, no further court cases would be scheduled, and claimants would be approached with out-of-court settlement offers as early as next summer.

Over 6,200 claims for DePuy hip replacement injury compensation have now been filed in the US, with 4,200 included in the MDL and a further 2,000 independently filed with State courts. This number is anticipated to rise sharply in the coming months, as many States have a Statute of Limitations which disqualifies claims for DePuy injury compensation after two years (the DePuy ASR hip recall was announced in August 2010).

If you or a loved one have received any metal-on-metal hip implant, and would like to know if you are eligible for hip replacement compensation, you should discuss the circumstances of your injury with a solicitor at the earliest possible opportunity.

The House of Lords was addressed last week by Baroness Taylor of Bolton who brought to the Lord´s attention an increasing risk of injury due to PPD in hair dye.

An hour-long “debate” was scheduled in order that the Baroness could raise awareness of the dangers associated with the chemical para-Phenylensiamine (PPD) and ask the Government what steps were being taken to advise consumers in the UK of the risk of injury due to PPD in hair dye.

Baroness Taylor quoted a report that had been published in the British Medical Journal which claimed that 8 per cent of allergic skin reactions treated in hospital were attributable to PPD and that this percentage was increasing on an annual basis.

Lady Taylor – supported by Baroness Randerson, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein and Lord Collins of Highbury -  called on the Government to improve the labelling on hair products containing para-Phenylensiamine to advise people of the risk of injury due to PPD in hair dye.

In response, Baroness Wilcox – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State representing the Government – stated that the labelling of para-Phenylensiamine in hair dye was regulated by the European cosmetic products directive and was implemented into UK law as the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2008.

However, Baroness Wilcox advised the House that the European Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety was currently investigating the risk of injury due to PPD in hair dye and a report on their findings was due to be released in June. She said that the Government would participate in any co-ordinated campaign that emerges to protect the British consumer.

PPD in hair dye was blamed for the death of 17 year old Tabatha McCourt last October and for the condition of Julia McCabe, who remains in a coma after collapsing last year due to an alleged severe allergic reaction to para-Phenylensiamine.

The Clinical Director of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has stated that there will be no metal on metal hip implant recall following data published in the Lancet which demonstrated that as many as 6.2 per cent of all metal on metal hip implants will fail within the first five years.

Dr Susanne Ludgate made the announcement after researchers from the University of Bristol analysed more than 400,000 hip replacement operations recorded on the National Joint Registry since 2003, and published their findings in the world´s most respected medical journal.

The research showed that 6.2 per cent of all metal on metal hip implants had failed within the first five years, compared to 1.7 per cent of metal on plastic hip implants and 2.3 per cent of ceramic on ceramic hip implants.

A higher level of hip implant failure was identified in women – particularly younger women who may lead a more active lifestyle – and metal on metal hip implants with a “large head”, with the report stating that each 1mm increase in head size increased the risk of revision surgery by 2 per cent.

The refusal of the MHRA to recall metal on metal hip implants will come as no surprise to those who have been following the DePuy hip recall story. Only two weeks ago the MHRA was criticised on BBC´s NewsNight program for allowing metal on metal hip implants to be introduced into the UK without any clinical testing.

The MHRA response was to announce that all recipients of metal on metal hip implants should have annual testing for the life of the implant to ensure the integrity of the hip replacement system and to check against displaced metal debris entering the bloodstream. However, the growing volume of data which suggests that there should be a metal on metal hip implant recall has not swayed Dr Ludgate.

“We recognise that there is emerging evidence of increased revision rates associated with large head metal on metal hip replacements,” Dr Ludgate told reporters, “but the clinical evidence is mixed and this does not support their removal from the market”.

A BBC Newsnight report, prepared in conjunction with the British Medical Journal (BMJ), has made faulty hip replacement claims against the manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip replacement systems and accused the Department of Health of failing in its duty of care to almost 50,000 hip implant patients.

The program, which was aired last night on the BBC, claimed that problems with metal-on-metal hip implants had been known for many years, but no action had been taken to inform orthopaedic surgeons or patients, or to stop the use of faulty hip replacement systems in the UK. The report claimed that all “large head” (≥36mm) metal-on-metal hip replacement systems had a high failure rate due to friction between the ball and cup causing metallic ions to enter the blood stream and cause tissue necrosis and other complications.

Evidence of the claims was produced using the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement system as an example, which was introduced into the country without any clinical tests, and that was producing test results as early as 2008 which indicated up to fifty times the normal level of chromium in the blood streams of patients having to undergo revision surgery. It was reported on the program that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said on Tuesday around 49,000 patients in the UK were in a high-risk category due to potential system toxicity.

The MHRA – the Department of Health agency responsible for ensuring that medical devices work and are acceptably safe – was also attacked on the program for allowing the faulty hip replacements to be introduced into the UK without any clinical testing, and for accepting the recommendations of a benefit/risk assessment panel established in 2008 which included consultants and a director of product development from the faulty hip replacement manufacturing companies.

In response to the faulty hip replacement claims, Professor Sir Kent Woods – MHRA´s Chief Executive Office – said that there were fundamental differences between the way the drugs and medical devices were introduced into the healthcare market, and his agency would continue to work with the British Hip Society and British Orthopaedic Society to analyse the rate of wear of metal-on-metal hip implants according to the data collected on the National Joint Registry.

Claims for compensation for Tassimo burns are likely to follow the recall of the Tassimo coffee maker in the United States and Canada, after the manufacturers acknowledged that at least 160 cases of burn injuries and scalding were attributable to a design fault.

More than 1.7 million Tassimo coffee makers have been withdrawn in North America after the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) found that the machine´s T-disc – the plastic pot containing the coffee – could explode and shower bystanders with scalding water. Thirty-seven instances of second-degree burns have been reported to the CPSC, including the case of a two-year-old girl who was hospitalised after receiving burns to her face.

The Tassimo coffee making machines, which are still on sale in the UK, have been marketed worldwide since 2008, and the Tassimo coffee maker recall has been extended to include 4 million Gevalia, Maxwell House and Nabob espresso T-discs still believed to be in circulation in American grocery stores. The recalled discs are sold in packets of eight and sixteen and, like the Tassimo coffee making machines, are still available in stores in the UK.

Compensation claims for Tassimo burns are likely to be made against BSH Home Appliances Corporation – the manufacturers of the Tassimo coffee makers – who are based in Irvine, California. Burn injury compensation for a burn from a Tassimo coffee maker should also account for any permanent scarring resulting from a Tassimo coffee maker burn and – especially when a child has been scalded by a Tassimo coffee maker – consideration should be made for any ongoing psychological injury.

For the second time in a little over two years, an IKEA high chair recall has been announced following complaints about safety issues and after children have been injured due to the company´s negligence.

 In December 2009, an IKEA high chair recall was announced in respect of the “Leopard” brand of high chairs after it was discovered that a design fault in the safety lock could cause the locks to release suddenly and allow children seated in the high chair to fall between the high chair table and seat. One IKEA high chair injury claim is known to have been made after a little boy fell in this way and received severe bruising to his legs.

 Now, following reports of a further design fault, the belts on the “Antilop” IKEA high chairs have been recalled after reports of several children being injured when they fell from the chairs after the safety belts had unexpectedly opened. More than one million IKEA high chairs are estimated to be affected, with over 60,000 sold in the UK between 2007 and 2011. Already three children are reported to have sustained injuries from falls from an “Antilop” high chair, entitling their parents to make IKEA high chair injury compensation claims.

 Parents who are concerned that the belts on their “Antilop” high chair are subject to the IKEA high chair recall should look at the label on the underside of the chair. Only chairs with the supplier #17389 and a production date between 0607 and 0911 are considered to be hazardous and present a risk of a child falling. However, due to the popularity of this particular brand of IKEA high chair, parents should also be vigilant when placing their child in an “Antilop” high chair in a crèche, restaurant of other business establishment with a duty of care towards children.

 The possibility of further IKEA high chair injury compensation claims exists for the parents of children who have sustained an unreported injury due to faults in the recalled IKEA high chairs – claimed either against the Swedish furniture manufacturer, or from any business establishment who continues to provide these high chairs on their premises while known to present a dangerous hazard.

Thousands of breast implant recall compensation claims could emerge from women worried about the Poly Implant Prothese (PIP) recall in the UK.

When the recall was first announced in March 2010, the advice provided at the time by the French medical device regulatory authority AFSSAPS was for women who were concerned over their PIP breast implants to undergo an ultrasound scan to check for suspected ruptures of the implant sac.

Subsequently it emerged that the recalled breast implants, which have a higher incidence of rupturing than is usual, also contained an unauthorised silicone gel which could cause an inflammatory reactions in certain women. Now health officials in France are advising for all women who have received PIP recalled breast implants to have them removed.

Although the UK´s medicines watch dog – the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency – insists there is no risk of cancer from this lower grade silicone gel, one woman in France is known to have died due to anaplastic large cell lymphoma and many women in the UK have suffered unusual and painful symptoms once the silicone gel has secreted into their lymph nodes.

With the manufacturer of the recalled breast implants having gone out of business since the recall, breast implant recall compensation claims are being directed against the clinics and surgeries which originally performed the breast implant operation – not only for the physical ailments caused by the ruptured implants, but for the emotional distress of suffered by the affected women who may not yet be aware of how badly their health has been affected.

A man whose feet erupted in blisters due to the high irritant content in a new pair of shoes has settled his foot injury compensation claim against the manufacturers in an out-of-court settlement.

Chris Heleine (51) from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, had purchased the Sperry Top-Siders shoes from the Leeds branch of Hip Menswear in April 2009 prior to going on holiday to Spain. However, within hours of wearing the shoes, his feet had erupted into large blisters and he was rushed to hospital.

Staff at the hospital in Menorca popped the blisters and drained the fluid that had collected underneath but, following the initial treatment, Chris had to return to the hospital each day for a week to have his dressing changed as the high humidity in Menorca could have resulted in both feet becoming infected.

On his return to the UK, Chris sought legal advice, and his solicitors arranged to have the chemical content of the shoes analysed. The results of the analysis revealed unusually high level of 2-Mercaptobenzothiazole – a classified irritant and the cause of Chris´ blisters.

Chris made a foot injury compensation claim against the manufacturers of the shoes – American company Collective Brands – and, after they conducted their own independent chemical analysis, the company admitted liability for Chris´ injuries and paid a four-figure sum in settlement of the foot injury compensation claim.

A mother of two has fallen into a coma and suffered brain damage allegedly due to a PPD hair dye injury caused by the presence of para-Phenylenediamine (PPD) in the L’Oreal Preferences hair dye she was using at the time.

Julie McCabe (38) from Keighley in West Yorkshire collapsed shortly after rinsing out the hair dye at her home on 30th October and was rushed to Airedale General Hospital by her father. However, on the journey to the hospital Julie´s heart stopped beating and, although doctor´s were able to revive her on her arrival at the emergency room, Julie´s brain had been without oxygen for so long that she fell into a coma.

Doctors were told that Julie used the same hair dye every six weeks and conducted a patch test prior to use as recommended on the packet. They believe that Julie´s PPD hair dye injury may have been brought on by a build up of the chemical para-Phenylenediamine and are conducting further test with the assistance of the manufacturer of the product to confirm whether or not this is the case.

Julie´s PPD hair dye injury comes just several weeks after Tabatha McCourt suffered a fatal fit which was attributed to an allergic reaction to PPD in hair dye, and consumer groups have alerted the public to possible health risks of using hair dye containing PPD which include dermatitis, nerve damage, lung irritation and possibly bladder cancer.

The latest news on the hip replacement recall made by DePuy in August 2010 surrounds events currently taking place in the United States.

In September, Judge David A. Katz, the judge assigned to hear the multidistrict litigation case in Toledo, Ohio, issued Case Management Orders for all claimants in the class action law suits filed to date in the States, to provide  Fact Sheets and Medical Records Authorisation Forms if they have already undergone revision surgery.

The Fact Sheets and Medical Records Authorisation Forms contain basic information concerning the injuries sustained by the claimants and will substitute for individual disclosure to the defendants in the case – DePuy Orthopaedics Inc and their insurers Broadspire Services Inc. DePuy Orthopaedics have 120 days from the receipt of these documents to present the court with detailed information about each replacement hip system which was initially implanted, and facts relating to any communication between the company, their agents and the claimant.

Inasmuch as these submissions provide basic information about each claimant, solicitors representing those making a DePuy hip replacement compensation claim will still have to compile a case for each, as damages will be awarded on an individual basis (should DePuy Orthopaedics be found liable for personal injury compensation) depending on their unique circumstances. Those still to undergo revision surgery will still be able to claim for advanced pain and suffering, but awards of personal injury compensation will be distributed on the merit of each separate case.

Further to Judge Katz´s Case management Order, the latest news on the hip replacement recall law suits is that a conference between representatives of the legal firms which have filed class action lawsuits to date has been scheduled in Toledo for Tuesday November 22nd. The judge himself will be in attendance to assess the progress of the Case Management Orders and decide whether pre-trial hearings are the next appropriate action.

A former gymnast, who promoted the DePuy ASR Hip Replacement System prior to the product´s worldwide recall last year, is making a personal injury compensation claim against the product´s manufacturers Johnson & Johnson following difficulties with her own DePuy hip replacement system.

Penny Brown (51) of Bath, Wiltshire, had hip replacement surgery in 2004 to relieve her from the constant pain of osteoarthritis. At the time, the DePuy ASR hip replacement system transformed her life to such a degree that she agreed to become the “face” of DePuy and promote their hip replacement systems throughout the UK.

Between 2004 and 2008, Penny was DePuy´s “patient brand” and her image was used extensively throughout the world. Penny also gave interviews about the benefits of the DePuy ASR hip replacement system and counselled patients about to have implant surgery. However, in 2009, Penny started to develop a groin pain which was diagnosed as being caused by the hip replacement system and, as the wear and tear increased, felt a clunking sensation whenever she walked anywhere.

In May this year, Penny was informed that she would need revision surgery which would mean the removal of the DePuy ASR hip replacement system and a replacement system installed.  She underwent her operation last month, and has been bed-bound and unable to work ever since. “My life has been devastated” Penny told her local newspaper, “I not only feel let down personally but also feel guilty that I might have encouraged others to have the ASR implanted.”

Early investigations into the death of a teenage girl have suggested that her fatal fit was caused by a severe allergic reaction to PPD in hair dye.

Tabatha McCourt (17) from Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, went into the fit just 20 minutes after applying hair dye containing the chemical p-Phenylendiamine at a nearby friend´s home. Her friend, Heather Goodhall, told investigators that Tabatha had visited the bathroom after applying the hair dye and emerged in a state of shock, screaming “No! No! No!” and pulling at the foils in her hair.

Heather then explained that Tabatha had started vomiting and before passing out on the sofa. An ambulance was summoned and Tabatha was rushed to Monklands General Hospital, Lanarkshire, where she died shortly after arrival. Although a post-mortem into Tabatha´s death is still to be completed, investigators believe that an allergic reaction to PPD in hair dye may have been responsible for triggering the fit.

Claims that p-Phenylendiamine chemicals in hair dye – or PPD as it is more commonly known – can be responsible for causing damage to the nervous system, lung irritation and potentially bladder cancer have been gaining strength over the past decade, however this is the first time that an allergic reaction to PPD in hair dye has ever been attributed to a fatality.

Emma Meredith, head of scientific research at the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, explained that PPD is used in many dyes that darken hair. She said that “to have such an immediate and violent reaction to this or any other cosmetic product is exceedingly rare” and issued advice to always perform a patch test to check for an allergic reaction to PPD in hair dye 48 hours before intending to use a hair dye product.

Despite not being included in the DePuy hip recall of August 2010, the number of DePuy Pinnacle injury compensation claims in the United States has grown so quickly that legislators have merged them into one class action suit – known as a “multi-district litigation” case (MDL).

Over three hundred DePuy Pinnacle injury compensation claims have been filed to date – an alarming figure considering that the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement system was not introduced to the market until five years after the recalled DePuy ASR hip replacement systems in 2008 – with each claiming injuries similar to those experienced by patients affected by the DePuy hip recall.

One of the reasons for such a significant failure rate is that no clinical testing was performed on the DePuy Pinnacle hip replacement system prior to launch on the American market. A process known as 501(k) was used to introduce the faulty hip replacement system into the United States whereby DePuy were able to show that the Pinnacle hip replacement system was similar in design and function to an existing hip replacement product already being used in the United States – the subsequently recalled DePuy ASR Acetabular System!

The MDL for the DePuy Pinnacle injury compensation claims will be held at United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division under Judge Ed Linkeade at a date still to be determined.

UPDATE February 2010: The number of claimants who have joined the MDL for DePuy Pinnacle injury compensation claims has risen to over 900. Unfortunately, a similar “grandfathering” process was used to introduce the Pinnacle hip replacement system into the UK and current advice from the UK Medicines Regulator is for recipients of the faulty metal on metal hip replacement system to have annual blood tests to check for high levels of cobalt and chromium entering the blood stream.

A claim for blood poisoning injury has been made against DePuy Orthopaedics by a woman who received her DePuy ASR hip replacement system as recently as November 2009.

The claim, made by Delores Hatcher from Wheeling, West Virginia, follows the results of a blood test in April 2011 which indicated high levels of chromium-1 and meta-cobalt in her blood – known causes of cardiovascular injury and neurological conditions such as headaches, confusion and cognitive decline, and possibly carcinogens which could lead to the development of cancer.

Delores added her claim to the growing number of compensation claims following the DePuy hip recall of August 2010 after visiting her doctor complaining of pain around her left hip and difficulty in walking. Both Delores and her doctor were overcome by the outcome of the blood tests as the hip replacement was fitted in November 2009 and had failed in a short period of time.

 In her claim for blood poisoning compensation, Delores also accuses Johnson & Johnson – the parent company of DePuy Orthopaedics – of hiding known defects with the faulty hip replacement systems and alleges that they aggressively marketed the faulty hip replacement systems by paying kickbacks to medical supplies purchasers and orthopaedic surgeons.

Disclosure has begun in the multi-district litigation case against DePuy Orthopaedics on behalf of thousands of Americans who have made DePuy injury compensation claims following the recall of the DePuy ASR XL Acetabular and DePuy ASR Articular hip replacement systems last August.

During the preliminary disclosure, depositions will be taken from three DePuy executives to ascertain the company´s corporate organisation, retention policies and storage of electronic information. This information has been asked for by solicitors representing claimants making DePuy injury compensation claims in the United States, as they believe that there is incriminating evidence relating to the sale and distribution of the recalled ASR hip replacement systems.

It is hoped that these depositions will accelerate the multi-district litigation case investigating the DePuy hip recall and reduce the time it could take for so many DePuy injury compensation claims to be resolved. More than 93,000 recalled DePuy hip replacement systems were implanted in the United States between 2003 and 2010 and it is expected that many thousands more affected by the “higher than expected” failure rate will have joined the class action before it is resolved.

This first stage of disclosure is scheduled to be concluded by April 28th 2011, at which time pre-trial arguments on behalf of those making DePuy injury compensation claims will be heard by the Honourable Judge David A. Katz at the Northern Ohio District Court.