Zimmer Hip Lawsuit Judge Denies Summary Judgment
Mary Jo Ott was an Illinois resident who filed a Zimmer hip lawsuit in the United States’ District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that claimed that the device she had been implanted with had been designed and manufactured defectively. The plaintiff is seeking to hold device manufacturer Zimmer liable for the injuries she suffered in relation to the hip replacement system, but the manufacturer moved for summary judgement, which argued that the plaintiff never provided expert testimony that would support her claims. The judge presiding over the case, Judge William Hart, recently denied this motion for summary judgment.
Zimmer hip litigation outlines Trilogy problems
Zimmer is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed by patients who have suffered alleged injury as a result of their use of the company’s Durom Cup device, which is a metal-on-metal hip replacement device. Fewer patients have reported problems with the Trilogy hip replacement system, which plaintiff Mary Jo Ott claims to have experienced her problems with. Zimmer claims that this device, especially the socket part of the implant–which is known as the Constrained Liner–has a unique design that can help improve the range of motion a patient experiences after being implanted with the hip replacement system.
Plaintiff Ott claims that, contrary to the assertions made by the defendants, the device served to restrict her range of motion and was prone to premature failure, which could lead to the need for revision surgery. Zimmer hip revision surgery is a risky second surgery intended to remove the defective hip replacement device and replace it with a different set of components.
Plaintiff’s executor carries on the case
Plaintiff Ott died at the age of 66 of causes unrelated to her Zimmer hip system. The executor of her estate, Jori A. Greybill, has continued with the lawsuit in her stead. Greybill has provided testimony from both orthopedic surgeon Mitchell Sheinkop and surgeon Michael O’Rourke, the surgeons who performed Ott’s initial implantation surgery and her revision surgery, respectively. Judge Hart noted these testimonies as evidence that the case had, unlike the defendants claimed, included expert testimony.
The plaintiff is seeking compensation for the patient’s injures.