Last updated on Friday 27th January 2020
The purpose of this website is to look at the Pinnacle Hip Trial Verdict that was released on 21st May 2018, and determine what can be done about it.
"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."
For the full and summary verdicts click HERE
It seems that the only way that I can do something about the verdict is to attempt to take legal action on my own. i.e. not as part of a group or class action.
I have started this process, but it's tricky.
I'm starting to think that the legal process should have been a different sort of trial, because so many have been seriously damaged by Chrome/Cobalt prostheses.
If a company permanently and seriously injures people … is that a criminal act?
I've cut the site down to focus on the reasons why I don't agree with the verdict. I've used unambiguous facts, and solid logic to show that the verdict should have been different.
Like many, I wish we had appealed against the verdict. I still have one small glowing ember of hope that we might somehow attempt an appeal.
I spoke with a lawyer (not from Leigh Day) some time ago, and was told …
The 'appeal out of time' caught my attention,
and the question is …
Was the decision one
which no reasonable judge
could have come to?
I would love to hear anyone's views on this.
What does reasonable mean in this context?
Well, I clearly don't know the legal view, but for me it means …
… having sound judgement,
being fair, conscientious,
sensible and wise.
If you have any views on this, or the 'appeal out of time' idea, then do please get in touch.
-0-
At the Trial …
DePuy convinced the Court that National Joint Register data was not valid for assessment of Pinnacle Ultamet durability. They did this by arguing:
A) that patients and surgeons were rushing to replace Ultamet hips in 2010, when the DePuy ASR hip was recalled
B) that cross linked polyethylene prostheses had become available after Ultamet was introduced - and were potentially superior, and not valid for performance comparison
C) that gender, BMI, activity, and age differences made it impossible to compare different prostheses
None of these points are valid.
DePuy's barristers invested a large amount of time and effort in undermining the UK's National Joint Registry, because …
… UK National Joint Registry data provides clear evidence that the Pinnacle Metal-on-Metal prosthesis is, and always was, unreliable and unsafe …
… just as any other Metal-on-Metal prosthesis manufactured using a cobalt/chrome alloy.
Here are some of the images that support my view on the verdict.
They show that Mrs Justice Andrews' verdict contradicts verifiable facts detailed in Part 1 to Part 5 of this website.
This is why I do not agree with Mrs Justice Andrews' verdict.
