Part 1
ARMD
"Accordingly, DePuy is not liable"
-0-
The Verdict
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE ANDREWS DBE included the following paragraphs in her verdict statement ...
20. i) The Claimants’ pleaded primary case is untenable. The inherent propensity of a MoM hip to shed metal debris through normal use, to which some patients may suffer an adverse immunological reaction, is not a “defect” in the product within the meaning of the Act and the Directive. It did not become a “defect” by reason of the recorded incidence of such adverse reactions or the calculated risk of the probability of the revision of the prosthesis on account of them.
20. ii) On their alternative case, the Claimants have failed to prove that the Pinnacle Ultamet prosthesis 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. The Court was unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that there was a materially greater risk of a Pinnacle Ultamet prosthesis failing within the first 10 years after implant than a comparator prosthesis, and thus that the product carried with it an “abnormal risk” of damage.
20. iii) Accordingly, DePuy is not liable to the claimants.
-0-
A new car which regularly totally fails after 3 years would be classed as defective, based on comparison with other cars which last seven or more years without failure. It may have some good design features, but if it fails, and injures or kills people, it's defective.
The defects would be 'lack of safety and durability'.
The car would quickly be taken off the market, because of lack of demand.
That's exactly what happened to DePuy's Ultamet hip in 2013.
-0-
-0-
With regard to paragraph 20. i):
DePuy marketed their (old technology*) Ultamet hip, as a new approach to making hip prostheses last longer. Here's an extract from their 2003 brochure ...
* Metal on metal hips had been used since the 1960s
Hipion does not collect information about you, or how you use this site.