1 (877) 284-6600
Local (816) 221-6600

Biomet Faces More Magnum Hip Replacement Lawsuits

Biomet Magnum Hip Implant

May 3, 2018. Three more lawsuits have been filed against Biomet Orthopedics on behalf of patients who had to undergo traumatic hip revision surgery due to defective Biomet Magnum hip implants.

Patients Suffer from Magnum Hip Implant

All three patients have suffered from a long and difficult recovery due to the Biomet Magnum hip implant.

Robert Bloom. While undergoing a revision surgery to remove the Magnum hip implant, a pseudotumor was discovered and removed by the surgeon, who replaced the device with a different type of hip implant. Mr. Bloom then suffered an infection in the hip and had to undergo a third hip replacement surgery.

A pseudotumor is a non-cancerous soft tissue growth that occurs when metal particles from a metal-on-metal hip implant irritate tissue in the hip. They can grow for many years undetected; however, these growths can cause severe pain and inflammation requiring a revision surgery to correct the problem.

Raymond Moore. It was determined that severe pain, burning and extremely high levels of metal in Moore’s bloodstream was caused by his Biomet Magnum hip implant. Moore underwent surgery to remove the device. During this procedure, the surgeon had to cut out the surrounding hip tissue due to the extensive physical damage left behind.

Robert Quinn. This patient suffered metallosis caused by his Biomet Magnum hip implant. The surgeon discovered significant amounts of metal debris and fluid surrounding the hip muscle and tissues.

Metallosis, a type of metal poisoning that can occur as a side effect from a hip implant device, occurs when toxic levels of metal build up in the body. Metallosis can cause damage to tissue, bone and the nervous system.

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


Biomet Avoided Safety Testing Magnum Hips

The design of the Magnum hip was based on similar metal-on-metal hip implants from the 1970’s that failed primarily because of metal poisoning. The lawsuit indicates that a loophole in the FDA’s approval process was used to bring the Magnum hip to market without any testing to make sure it was safe.


Biomet: Sales Before Safety?

In the complaint filed against Biomet, it states that Biomet and Dr. John Cuckler, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon who worked with Biomet for years to design the Magnum hip implant, conducted a secret marketing campaign in exchange for millions of dollars in payment. This financial arrangement led to a serious conflict of interest.

At the time the device went on the market, Dr. Cuckler made speeches and wrote scholarly articles about the Magnum hip replacement and the safety of metal-on-metal hip implants. Biomet was paying Cuckler a percentage of all Magnum implant sales without disclosing this information to patients or in articles he wrote for the orthopedic community. The more the device was promoted, the more money Cuckler could earn.

An investigation by the US Department of Justice ensued, which resulted in criminal charges against Biomet for these types of financial agreements with the medical community. Biomet entered a “deferred prosecution agreement” with the government to avoid convictions on these charges.


Experienced Attorneys Handle Biomet Litigation

Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A. is leading the litigation of these cases across the United States in partnership with Nash & Franciskato. The first trial involving a Biomet metal-on-metal hip implant is scheduled for September 2018 in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. This team has filed lawsuits in multiple states across the country and are preparing for a series of trials against Biomet.

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


Receive a Free Evaluation from Defective Hip Replacement Attorneys

If you were implanted with a defective Biomet metal-on-metal hip replacement system that requires hip revision surgery, contact us today for a free, no-obligation review of your case.

Contact us


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.