Zimmer knee revision surgery multidistrict litigation (MDL)
will begin soon. Several attorneys were recently
appointed by U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer to be the leaders in the
litigation. Three attorneys will serve as Co-lead Counsel, one attorney as Liaison
Counsel, and approximately twelve will be part of the Plaintiffs’ Steering
Committee. A Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex lawsuit was filed in the MDL last August
because many people needed knee revision surgery, or suffered from Zimmer
NexGen knee failure. The orthopedics giant Zimmer is alleged to be at fault.
The number of plaintiffs filing such suits is growing quite
rapidly. When
the MDL was first established, and Zimmer knee lawsuits were transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois, twenty-eight lawsuits had been filed. Since then,
at least seventy-two more were filed and consolidated. Perhaps hundreds more
may be filed. That is because many people have experienced problems with the
Zimmer NextGen CR-Flex that resulted in knee failure or surgery.
CR-Flex Knee Studies and Findings
A report issued in 2010 by Dr. Richard Berger concerning the CR-Flex
model showed that 36 percent of the 108 implants showed loosening after two
years, and about 8.3 percent required Zimmer knee revision surgery due to such
loosening and ultimate Zimmer knee failure. The Zimmer CR-Flex model is
not cemented to the thigh bone as are most knee implant models, but is intended
to naturally fuse with the bone. This may be a possible cause of the problems.
Zimmer suggests twelve to fifteen years of use with a wide range
of motion with their NexGen CR-Flex model. However, some patients have
experienced Zimmer NexGen knee failure after just two years, while others
needed surgery to correct problems associated with the device. These patients
alleged that Zimmer negligently designed the implant, and did not disclose inherent
risks.
Zimmer did recall some component parts of another NexGen model in
September 2010, but did not take the NexGen CR-Flex off the market. Zimmer has
claimed that the implant is safe, but the preponderance of lawsuits may result
in a different decision. Attorneys should follow the litigation and closely
note what transpires.
