(877) 284-6600
Local (816) 221-6600

Zimmer Ordered to Pay $2 Million in Hip Implant Case

Zimmer hip implant case

In a March 31, 2017 ruling, Zimmer was ordered to pay more than $2 million to a New Mexico man for a defective hip implant with an “unreasonably dangerous design.”

The product in question is Zimmer’s dual modular hip implant, the M/L Taper Hip Prosthesis with Kinective Technology (MLTK) and a cobalt-chromium head. The company had to deal with a major recall of the same device in 2015 due to manufacturing residues.

New Mexico Judge Nan G. Nash ruled for the plaintiff on the grounds of strict product liability. The judge traced the product defect to Zimmer’s testing its components in isolation, but not their interactions together, which would have determined their potential harm.


About the Case

In February 2010, the plaintiff was suffering right hip pain that was preventing him from his usual activities. In June of that year, he received the MLTK implant. By May 2011, the plaintiff suffered from hip and groin pain and loss of flexibility resulting in two corrective surgeries where the doctor implanted two new prostheses and replaced the cobalt-chromium head with a ceramic head.


About the Award

Judge Nash wrote,“It is more probable than not that Plaintiff will need a third more complicated revision surgery in the future.”

In determining the damages of $2.027 million, the judge apportioned it into:

  • $1 million for past and future pain and suffering
  • $480,000 for lost enjoyment of life, and
  • the remainder for past and future medical expenses, lost household services, and out of pocket expenses

Receive a Free Evaluation from Experienced Product Liability Attorneys

The attorneys at Nash & Franciskato have extensive experience handling hip replacement litigation and are very familiar with Zimmer and their products. If you have any questions about your hip implant, contact us for a free, no-obligation review of your case.

Our knowledgeable staff is available at (877) 284-6600.

Contact Us.


Past results afford no guarantee of future results and each case is different and is judged on its own merits.