Preview Newsletter
Depuy Pinnacle UK Trial EOD 21 May
-
Patients lose hip replacement court case
May 21, 2018 | BBC News Online
By BBC News Online
Hundreds of patients have lost the first round of a legal battle for compensation at the High Court over allegedly "defective" hip implants. -
Hundreds of patients lose battle over allegedly 'defective' hip implants
May 21, 2018 | The Telegraph
By Gareth Davies
Hundreds of patients have lost a legal battle over allegedly "defective" hip implants. -
Hundreds of patients lose battle over allegedly 'defective' hip implants
May 21, 2018 | Yahoo News UK
By Gareth Davies
Hundreds of patients have lost a legal battle over allegedly "defective" hip implants. -
Patients lose court case over hip replacements
May 21, 2018 | Talk Radio
By James Hingle
Hundreds of patients have lost a legal battle over allegedly "defective" hip implants. -
Hundreds of patients lose High Court battle over 'defective' hip implants that 'leave them 100 times more likely to need another replacement'
May 21, 2018 | Daily Mail
By Kate Buck
Hundreds of patients have lost their High Court battle over allegedly 'defective' hip implants. -
DePuy prevails in hip replacement group action
May 21, 2018 | Claims Media
By Mark Dugdale
DePuy International’s Pinnacle Ultamet total hip replacement prosthesis is not defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the High Court has ruled. -
Victoria Derbyshire (before verdict 1)
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC Victoria Derbyshire
Please click this link to view the coverage: https://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/93f24055-614e-40c0-9ba1-f8dfa476d600?token=063cba5a-7cb1-4288-983f-29faf87bff71 -
Victoria Derbyshire (before verdict 2)
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC Victoria Derbyshire
Please click this link to view the coverage: https://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/6afaa7a7-29a3-4b15-80fd-09604b100661?token=063cba5a-7cb1-4288-983f-29faf87bff71 -
Victoria Derbyshire Verdict Announcement
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC Victoria Derbyshire
Please click this link to view the coverage: https://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/45a6e836-b81a-4b24-ba9a-b00b7889ece3?token=063cba5a-7cb1-4288-983f-29faf87bff71 -
BBC News
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC News
Please click this link to view the coverage: https://app.criticalmention.com/app/#clip/view/ed84bf55-c55a-4c37-ad4d-51fe11dbb3cb?token=063cba5a-7cb1-4288-983f-29faf87bff71
National Media Coverage
Trade Coverage
Broadcast Media Coverage
-
Patients lose hip replacement court case
May 21, 2018 | BBC News Online
By BBC News Online
Hundreds of patients have lost the first round of a legal battle for compensation at the High Court over allegedly "defective" hip implants.
A judge ruled that manufacturer DePuy was not liable to the 312 patients who claimed they had been injured by the implants.
Claimants say the metal-on-metal hips were defective and meant some patients needed more surgery than necessary.
The Pinnacle Ultamet replacement was withdrawn from sale in the UK in 2013.Image captionPatients say they have been left in permanent pain by metal-on-metal implants
And 312 people said they had had to have remedial surgery after it had failed prematurely.
Lawyers for claimants alleged it had released metal particles, damaging the surrounding tissues and causing pain, difficulty walking, swelling and numbness or loss of sensation in the leg.
But Mrs Justice Andrews said they had failed to prove the hip joint:"did not meet the level of safety that the public generally were entitled to expect at the time when it entered the market in 2002""carried with it an 'abnormal risk' of damage, as alleged"
And DePuy said it was "pleased" the implant had:"met the standard of safety under the Consumer Protection Act and performed as well or better than other prostheses that were on the market at the time"been "backed by a strong record of clinical data showing reduced pain and restored mobility for patients suffering from chronic hip pain"
"At DePuy, we have no greater responsibility than to the patients who use our products," it added.
But lawyers for the claimants, Leigh Day, said they were "extremely disappointed" by the judgement and were in touch with their clients "to see what next steps could be taken".
"It is genuinely concerning that the DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement, which no clinician would now use, from a product group the orthopaedic profession has rejected for the serious harm it can cause, is deemed safe by this judgement," they said.'Regular check-ups'
Last year, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said every patient with a metal-on-metal prosthetic hip should have regular check-ups to spot any complications.
"Although the majority of patients with these metal-on-metal devices have well-functioning hips, it is known some may develop soft tissue reactions related to their implant.
"The clinical advice we have received indicates patients will likely have the best outcomes if these problems are detected early, monitored and treated if necessary," the MHRA said when it updated its advice in 2017.
About 56,000 UK patients have had a metal-on-metal hip device implanted.
-
Hundreds of patients lose battle over allegedly 'defective' hip implants
May 21, 2018 | The Telegraph
By Gareth Davies
Hundreds of patients have lost a legal battle over allegedly "defective" hip implants.
In what is believed to be one of the largest "product liability" group actions in the UK, a group of 312 claimants brought High Court proceedings against manufacturer DePuy over allegations relating to the failure of metal-on-metal implants.
The four-month hearing - which centred on Pinnacle Ultamet implants- concerned the preliminary issue of "whether or not the defendant is liable to the claimant, subject to any development risk defence".
On Monday in London, Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that DePuy is not liable to the claimants.
The contested action was brought on behalf of patients who claim to have been injured as a result of the early failure and consequent revision surgery of their metal-on-metal prosthetic hips.
Hundreds more metal-on-metal claims against a number of other manufacturers were put on hold pending the outcome of the trial.
Samantha Silver, of law firm Kennedys who acted for DePuy, said later: "The principles established in this judgment apply to all products used by consumers that come within the Consumer Protection Act.
"The decision will have significance for all manufacturers and distributors, not just those in the life sciences industry, as well as their insurers.
"It provides manufacturers with confidence that the courts can take into account the benefits and the inherent risks of certain products, for example, in cases where there is a known side effect or complication and the overall benefits outweigh the risks.
"The decision that the safety of new products should be compared to products existing at the time they are introduced to the market also safeguards the position of those developing new, potentially life-enhancing, technologies in the future."
The legal teams representing the claimants said in a statement that they were "extremely disappointed" by the judgment.
They said: "This is a complex and lengthy judgment, the implications of which are being carefully considered, however, the impact it will have on consumer safety and the ability of consumers to get redress, cannot be underestimated.
"We are in touch with our clients to discuss what next steps could be taken."
-
Hundreds of patients lose battle over allegedly 'defective' hip implants
May 21, 2018 | Yahoo News UK
By Gareth Davies
Hundreds of patients have lost a legal battle over allegedly "defective" hip implants.
In what is believed to be one of the largest "product liability" group actions in the UK, a group of 312 claimants brought High Court proceedings against manufacturer DePuy over allegations relating to the failure of metal-on-metal implants.
The four-month hearing - which centred on Pinnacle Ultamet implants - concerned the preliminary issue of "whether or not the defendant is liable to the claimant, subject to any development risk defence".
On Monday in London, Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that DePuy is not liable to the claimants.
The contested action was brought on behalf of patients who claim to have been injured as a result of the early failure and consequent revision surgery of their metal-on-metal prosthetic hips.
Hundreds more metal-on-metal claims against a number of other manufacturers were put on hold pending the outcome of the trial.
Samantha Silver, of law firm Kennedys who acted for DePuy, said later: "The principles established in this judgment apply to all products used by consumers that come within the Consumer Protection Act.
"The decision will have significance for all manufacturers and distributors, not just those in the life sciences industry, as well as their insurers.
"It provides manufacturers with confidence that the courts can take into account the benefits and the inherent risks of certain products, for example, in cases where there is a known side effect or complication and the overall benefits outweigh the risks.
"The decision that the safety of new products should be compared to products existing at the time they are introduced to the market also safeguards the position of those developing new, potentially life-enhancing, technologies in the future."
The legal teams representing the claimants said in a statement that they were "extremely disappointed" by the judgment.
They said: "This is a complex and lengthy judgment, the implications of which are being carefully considered, however, the impact it will have on consumer safety and the ability of consumers to get redress, cannot be underestimated.
"We are in touch with our clients to discuss what next steps could be taken."
-
Patients lose court case over hip replacements
May 21, 2018 | Talk Radio
By James Hingle
Hundreds of patients have lost a legal battle over allegedly "defective" hip implants.
In what is believed to be one of the largest "product liability" group actions in the UK, a group of 312 claimants brought High Court proceedings against manufacturer DePuy over allegations relating to the failure of metal-on-metal implants.
The four-month hearing - which centred on Pinnacle Ultamet implants - concerned the preliminary issue of "whether or not the defendant is liable to the claimant, subject to any development risk defence".
On Monday in London, Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that DePuy is not liable to the claimants.
The contested action was brought on behalf of patients who claim to have been injured as a result of the early failure and consequent revision surgery of their metal-on-metal prosthetic hips.
Hundreds more metal-on-metal claims against a number of other manufacturers were put on hold pending the outcome of the trial.
Samantha Silver, of law firm Kennedys who acted for DePuy, said later: "The principles established in this judgment apply to all products used by consumers that come within the Consumer Protection Act.
"The decision will have significance for all manufacturers and distributors, not just those in the life sciences industry, as well as their insurers.
"It provides manufacturers with confidence that the courts can take into account the benefits and the inherent risks of certain products, for example, in cases where there is a known side effect or complication and the overall benefits outweigh the risks.
"The decision that the safety of new products should be compared to products existing at the time they are introduced to the market also safeguards the position of those developing new, potentially life-enhancing, technologies in the future."
The legal teams representing the claimants said in a statement that they were "extremely disappointed" by the judgment.
They said: "This is a complex and lengthy judgment, the implications of which are being carefully considered, however, the impact it will have on consumer safety and the ability of consumers to get redress, cannot be underestimated.
"We are in touch with our clients to discuss what next steps could be taken.
-
May 21, 2018 | Daily Mail
By Kate Buck
Hundreds of patients have lost their High Court battle over allegedly 'defective' hip implants.
In what is believed to be one of the largest 'product liability' group actions in the UK, a group of 312 claimants brought High Court proceedings against manufacturer DePuy over allegations relating to the failure of metal-on-metal implants.
The four-month hearing centred on Pinnacle Ultamet implants, which were taken out of circulation in 2013.
It concerned the issue of 'whether or not the defendant is liable to the claimant, subject to any development risk defence'.+2
It was reported that these Pinnacle Ultamet implants released metal particles which caused surrounding tissue to die, and made it 100 times more likely patients would need another replacement+2
The legal teams representing the 312 claimants said in a statement that they were 'extremely disappointed' by the judgment
Today, Mrs Justice Andrews ruled that DePuy is not liable to the claimants.
The action was brought on behalf of patients who claim to have been injured as a result of the early failure and consequent revision surgery of their metal-on-metal prosthetic hips.
Hundreds more metal-on-metal claims against a number of other manufacturers were put on hold pending the outcome of the trial.
The legal teams representing the claimants said in a statement that they were 'extremely disappointed' by the judgment.
They said: 'This is a complex and lengthy judgment, the implications of which are being carefully considered, however, the impact it will have on consumer safety and the ability of consumers to get redress, cannot be underestimated.
'We are in touch with our clients to discuss what next steps could be taken.'
Samantha Silver, of law firm Kennedys who acted for DePuy, said later: 'The principles established in this judgment apply to all products used by consumers that come within the Consumer Protection Act.
'The decision will have significance for all manufacturers and distributors, not just those in the life sciences industry, as well as their insurers.
'It provides manufacturers with confidence that the courts can take into account the benefits and the inherent risks of certain products, for example, in cases where there is a known side effect or complication and the overall benefits outweigh the risks.
'The decision that the safety of new products should be compared to products existing at the time they are introduced to the market also safeguards the position of those developing new, potentially life-enhancing, technologies in the future.
Why was action brought against DePuy?
It was reported that is was 100 times more likely recipients would need a replacement, because the implants released metal particles which caused surrounding tissue to die.
The hip implants were brought into use in 2002, and began being sold i the UK in 2004.
12,000 of them were sold in the UK alone, with 260,000 being used worldwide.
In 2008 DePuy became aware that some metal-on-metal parts for Pinnacle Ultamet 'were slightly outside our manufacturing specifications'.
Following an internal review, they said they would not cause 'safety issues'
In March 2013, DePuy announces 'discontinuation' of Pinnacle Ultamet device 'because of low clinician use'.
-
DePuy prevails in hip replacement group action
May 21, 2018 | Claims Media
By Mark Dugdale
DePuy International’s Pinnacle Ultamet total hip replacement prosthesis is not defective under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the High Court has ruled.
The decision on what was one of the largest product liability group actions in recent years could have a significant effect on all consumer product cases, lawyers for DePuy have said.
DePuy’s Pinnacle Ultamet metal-on-metal (MOM) total hip replacement prosthesis was allegedly defective and caused some recipients to undergo more surgery than was necessary.
More than 300 claimants brought the action against DePuy. They were represented by law firms Leigh Day, Irwin Mitchell, Hugh James and Corries throughout the four-month trial.
Justice Geraldine Andrews DBE issued her more than 340-page judgement today. She found that although a MOM product would, by its very nature, produce metal wear debris—which in turn might cause an adverse reaction in some patients—that was not in itself a defect for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
Samantha Silver, the partner at Kennedys who led the work for DePuy, commented: “The principles established in this judgement apply to all products used by consumers that come within the Consumer Protection Act.”
“The decision will have significance for all manufacturers and distributors, not just those in the life sciences industry, as well as their insurers.”
“It provides manufacturers with confidence that the courts can take into account the benefits and the inherent risks of certain products, for example, in cases where there is a known side effect or complication and the overall benefits outweigh the risks.”
“The decision that the safety of new products should be compared to products existing at the time they are introduced to the market also safeguards the position of those developing new, potentially life-enhancing, technologies in the future.”
The law firms representing the claimants said in a joint statement: “We are extremely disappointed by this judgement, and the conclusions reached by the judge.”
“It is genuinely concerning that the DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip replacement, which no clinician would now use, from a product group the orthopaedic profession has rejected for the serious harm it can cause, is deemed safe by this judgement.”
“This is a complex and lengthy judgement, the implications of which are being carefully considered, however, the impact it will have on consumer safety and the ability of consumers to get redress, cannot be underestimated.”
“We are in touch with our clients to discuss what next steps could be taken. At this stage we cannot provide any further information as to what this may entail, as we digest the full impact of this disappointing judgement.”
A number of other cases were put on hold in anticipation of a ruling in the DePuy litigation.
James Bell, clinical negligence partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: “While today’s judgement does not give any relief to claimants, a number of other cases that have been on hold can now proceed.”
“These cases have been on hold for over two years awaiting the Pinnacle judgement. Many of the claimants are elderly and have waited patiently for the outcome. I sincerely hope the court will now urgently expedite these cases—which are of an entirely different nature to the Pinnacle case.”
-
Victoria Derbyshire (before verdict 1)
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC Victoria Derbyshire
-
Victoria Derbyshire (before verdict 2)
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC Victoria Derbyshire
-
Victoria Derbyshire Verdict Announcement
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC Victoria Derbyshire
-
May 21, 2018 | Critical Mention
By BBC News
National Media Coverage
Trade Coverage
Broadcast Media Coverage
Add recipients
Suggested