Another Landmark Win For Victims

A federal jury in Texas ordered DePuy Orthopaedics, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, to pay $502 million to five people who received defective hip implants.
The jury deliberated almost six days and culled through two months of testimony before reaching the verdict, which included $142 million in actual and $360 million in punitive damages. According to the plaintiffs, the Pinnacle and Ultamet metal-on-metal (MoM) replacement hips suffer from design defects that cause them to fail much earlier than the manufacturer promised, causing severe pain in the process. For their part, DePuy and other device makers have consistently insisted that the implants are safe when properly used. Over 8,000 defective hip implant cases have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in Dallas, and the plaintiffs believe that another trial will begin this fall.
In 2013, DePuy agreed to settle similar claims regarding its Articular Surface Replacement devices for $4 billion.
Defective Products Cases
It is difficult to win a defective products cases in general, and defective medical devices cases in particular, without an expert witness. The same thing often applies in car crash cases that require medical experts to verify medical expenses, accident reconstructionists to back up the plaintiff’s version of events, financial professionals to calculate future lost wages, and the list goes on.
Fortunately for plaintiffs, New York has a lower standard for experts than most other states. A majority of states follow the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. According to that case, expert witnesses must meet a stringent three-point test before they can testify before the jury.
But New York courts still adhere to the Frye v. United States standard. In The Empire State, expert testimony is admissible if it is based on a technique or method that is generally accepted in the scientific or industrial community. So, plaintiffs can often present a much more compelling case to the jury, which generally translates to larger damage awards.
There is more good news. Whereas some jurisdictions require plaintiffs to present evidence of a superior alternative design, New York plaintiffs must only present a reasonable alternative design. An example of an unreasonable alternative design is the use of tank treads instead of snow tires on SUVs to improve traction.
Defective products cases often yield large damage awards. For a free consultation with attorneys who are committed to maximum recovery, contact our office. Mr. Proner was named one of the Top 100 trial lawyers by the American Trial Lawyers Association.