William Eklund, an employee of Boeing Inc., underwent hip replacement surgery in 2006. At some point following surgery. he began experiencing extreme hip pain and a persistent squeaking of the hip. He then found out that the M2a Magnum Metal-on-Metal Hip system from Biomet was failing and eventually underwent revision surgery in 2014 to remove and replace the device.
This lawsuit is different because it marks the first time a large international corporation has sued Zimmer Biomet on behalf of an employee.
Boeing filed suit on behalf of Eklund claiming he suffered an industrial injury caused by a defective M2a Magnum hip system.
According to the lawsuit, there is a critical difference with Biomet’s device: most hip replacements use a polyethylene plastic acetabular liner, whereas Biomet’s M2a Hip System “is a monoblock system which does not have any acetabular liner at all.” This forces the metal to rub against metal with the full weight and pressure of the human body.
Boeing’s lawsuit also alleges that the M2a Hip System “suffers from a design or manufacturing defect that causes excessive amounts of cobalt and chromium to wear and corrode from the surface of the acetabular cup, from the femoral head, and from the taper adapter.”
This leads to rejection of the hip implant, which can cause pain, looseness, dislocation and squeaking and popping sounds.
Questions? Our knowledgeable staff is available at (877) 284-6600.
The Boeing Co. v. Biomet Inc., No. 2:17-1132 (E.D. Wash.). Search harrismartin.com for Complaint Ref# HIP-1708-02.
Nash & Franciskato is a leading national law firm in the area of hip replacement litigation. Our attorneys have extensive experience handling hip replacement and knee replacement lawsuits, obtaining over $50 million in Collective Settlements involving defective knee and hip replacements.
If you were implanted with a defective Biomet M2a Magnum metal-on-metal hip replacement system that requires hip revision surgery, contact us today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation.
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.
