Contact Us
Two Pershing Square 2300 Main Street, Suite 170 Kansas City MO 64108Two Pershing Square
2300 Main Street, Suite 170
Kansas City, MO 64108
Directions
Telephone: (816) 221-6600
Toll Free: 1 (877) 284-6600
Fax: (816) 221-6612
Contact the attorneys at Nash & Franciskato if you have any one of the following defective metal-on-metal hip replacement systems: Biomet Magnum, DePuy ASR, DePuy Pinnacle, Stryker Rejuvenate, Stryker Accolade with TMZF Stem, Wright Medical Conserve, Wright Medical Pro-Femur Z, Zimmer Durom or Zimmer MMC.
One of our attorneys will contact you right away for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your case.
We are co-counsel with Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA on several M2a Magnum hip replacement cases that allege defects in the system.
Recently, a dispute arose over discovery requests asking for information regarding medical device report complaints on the M2a Magnum as well as another device considered to be “substantially similar.”
Biomet, the manufacturer, opposed the requests stating that they were overly broad, unduly burdensome and the information would not lead to the discovery of admissible information, which led counsel to file a motion to compel.
We are pleased to say that on October 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Deborah Bailey recommended the court grant our discovery motion.
We contend that since the implanted system (M2a Magnum) is “substantially similar” to a previous system (M2a38) manufactured by Biomet we can ask them to produce documentation on complaints arising out of that hip implant also.
Specifically, two categories of documents were requested:
The dispute centered on the requests for the M2a38 documents.
The rules that govern discovery permit the discovery of information “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In a product liability case, the Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate the other products are “substantially similar,” which counsel did.
As stated in the Order, counsel provided a page from a 510(k) Summary of Safety and Effectiveness report Biomet provided to the FDA to obtain approval to market the M2a Magnum System stating that it is “substantially equivalent” to the M2a38 system.
While Biomet argued that we did not meet this burden, the magistrate disagreed saying that, “documents produced by Biomet support the Plaintiffs’ position of substantial similarity between the M2a38 System and the M2a Magnum System.”
The magistrate went on to say, “Here the Plaintiffs do not rely on generic argument alone but, rather, have relied on Biomet’s own representations as to the similarity between the M2a38 and M2a Magnum Systems and the similarity in complaints between patients that have been implanted with components of both systems. Importantly, the documents relied on by the Plaintiffs are Biomet documents.”
The judge found that since the M2a38 is “substantially similar” to the M2a Magnum System, information about the former is discoverable.
Contact the attorneys at Nash & Franciskato if you have any one of the following defective metal-on-metal hip replacement systems: Biomet Magnum, DePuy ASR, DePuy Pinnacle, Stryker Rejuvenate, Stryker Accolade with TMZF Stem, Wright Medical Conserve, Wright Medical Pro-Femur Z, Zimmer Durom or Zimmer MMC.
One of our attorneys will contact you right away for a free, no-obligation evaluation of your case.
Consolidated Cases: Zaremba v. Orthopedics Inc., No. 2014CA01932NC; Silberg v. Orthodynamics Inc., No. 2014CA01934NC; Paluzzi v. Orthopedics Inc., No. 2014CA01936NC
Florida 12th Judicial Circuit Court for Sarasota County
Past results afford no guarantee of future results and each case is different and is judged on its own merits. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.