Zimmer Knee Replacement Lawsuits

Nearly a year since a panel of federal judges consolidated all former Zimmer knee replacement lawsuits into a multi-district, multi-lawsuit (MDL) lawsuit, attorneys involved in these cases are scheduled to meet today with the MDL courts for the first time. The goal is to determine if the current litigation can be resolved outside of Florida, where the majority of plaintiffs live and seek surgery. Additionally, the current situation is ripe with opportunity for large-scale settlement negotiations. The first step in any lawsuit involves discovery, which is the process of investigating both parties’ claims and collecting evidence to support them.

In this case, plaintiffs have been unable to obtain any discovery from defendants because the manufacturer of the device and their direct supplier, Kalo Medical, have refused to provide documents or information related to the manufacturing of the defective product.

Plaintiffs also are not able to obtain any money or other compensation from Kalo because they are required to sign non-disclosure agreements when they sign up for surgery. During the discovery process, plaintiffs are denied timely discovery, meaning that they were not provided with documents or information related to the manufacturing or design of the defective product until the last week of the trial. Kalo’s refusal to cooperate has caused many of the lawsuits in the class actions to be delayed and, in some instances, to be cancelled. Furthermore, the discovery process was designed to provide a forum in which plaintiffs could obtain the necessary information to build their cases.

As a result of defendants’ refusal to provide discovery, plaintiffs in all of the zimmer knee replacement lawsuits have lost the ability to establish their claims on the basis of medical facts and records, which are required to help prove a medical necessity.

Instead of allowing the defendants to control the discovery process and prevent plaintiffs from presenting their case based on medical facts and records, plaintiffs are now demanding that courts allow them to seek damages based on the effects of their injuries as a result of defendants’ failure to provide them with needed information. However, plaintiffs do not have enough evidence at this point to support a jury verdict on the issues of replacement injuries and adequate replacement components.

The purported defective components issue is the second aspect of the case that has generated significant attention from the judicial panel in the US.

Plaintiffs claim that the design of the Kalo product was so dangerous that it created a risk of patients suffering nerve damage, spasms, and other health consequences, even if they did not utilize the healthcare services for which the defendants are responsible. As a result of the defendants’ alleged lax attitude toward customer safety and their efforts to avoid providing the facts of the case, plaintiffs are unable to present a genuine case against Kalo.

One issue that has generated very limited attention in this case is whether plaintiffs have a basis for suing Kalo despite their obvious lack of evidence of any harm.

Plaintiffs argue that they have suffered injuries because of the design of the Kalo braces and because the defendants failed to warn them of the risks of their product. This is partly a question of law, but plaintiffs also argue that they have a legal right to pursue this lawsuit because they have suffered medical complications as a result of their inability to wear the braces. Additionally, they have a claim to compensation for pain and other complications. This suggests that plaintiffs may be able to obtain monetary damages for the alleged deficiencies even if they cannot show that Kalo caused or exacerbated the problem.

While the situation is unique, there are a number of similarities between the multidistrict litigation discussed above and the Zimmer knee replacement lawsuits discussed above.

Most importantly, both involve a product-related case against a medical device manufacturer. In addition, both involve claims of long-term negative effects on a person’s ability to function normally. Finally, both involve a party acting in a purported attempt to prevent access to relevant information regarding its negative effects. These characteristics make these two sets of cases different from each other. However, the fact that the products are alike could mean that they will have difficulty distinguishing one lawsuit from another or distinguishable enough from other lawsuits to warrant having separate class action lawsuits.

6 thoughts on “Zimmer Knee Replacement Lawsuits

  1. I have a Zimmer knee replacment device. I have loss of balance & infection. I need to know if there is any class action suit.

  2. i have 2 zimmer replacment loss of balance is there any class action i can do one 12019 other 2020

  3. I too have had both knees replaced with Zimmer total knee replacements & suffer loss of balance, clicking in left knee, difficulty walking downhill.

  4. 2019 Zimmer right knee total my leg is1 inch longer and have no strength in my legit clicks and is very loose. And I have fallen 2 times .

  5. I had a total right knee replacement in 2015 and a right knee revision in 2021. I am in still in an awful lot of pain and will be seeing a new knee Dr on Friday, Jan 20, 2023. In 2022, I visited 4 -5 knee Dr’s and none of them could help me with my pain. They looked at me like I am crazy. I really need some help because they have screwed me up. I can barely keep my balance.

  6. had knee surgery 9/30/21 with zimmer my knee creeks and cracks pain is horrible im having trouble finding any one who will help me any suggestions ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *