Depuy Personal Injury Trial Lawyers

From 2013 - The first trial in the USA Kransky v. Depuy continued to be watched closely.
My colleague San Diego personal injury lawyer Dean Goetz was attorney for the plaintiff Mr. Kranksy.

why you need personal injury lawyers:

Major events have been unfolding which can impact all of the over 11,000 plaintiffs who have filed personal injury lawsuits against Depuy for the Depuy ASR hip replacement implant.

After the plaintiff Mr. Kransky won an 8.3 million dollar verdict against Depuy March 8, 2013 in Los Angeles Superior Court, Depuy lawyers filed for a JNOV in April, one day after Depuy won their trial in Chicago where similar evidence had been introduced to the jurors who decided in favor of the defendant.

A JNOV means, "judgement notwithstanding of verdict." In other words, it means that the Depuy lawyers asked the Los Angeles judge to throw out the jury verdict from Mr. Kransky's trial. Depuy lawyers asked the judge to overrule the verdict from the jury in Los Angeles who decided on the evidence differently, in favor of the Plaintiff.

Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Mo- tion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

(a) JUDGMENT AS A M ATTER OF LAW . (1) In General. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue. (2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

(b) RENEWING THE MOTION A FTER TRIAL; ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL . If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment—or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged—the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may: (1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law. [1]

Depuy asked for the JNOV because of what had been revealed during the course of Mr. Kransky's trial and again in a Chicago Depuy trial where the Chicago jury had heard similar evidence but found in favor of the defendant in that case, for Depuy. The key issue whether or not Depuy acted properly or if they knowingly sold and marketed a dangerous and defective medical device. Both the Los Angeles jury and the Chicago jury heard the same evidence that came to light during the first USA trial. The New York Times reported April 16, 2013 that:

Internal DePuy documents introduced at the trials indicated that company officials knew that the design of the A.S.R. was flawed long before they recalled the device and even considered redesigning the implant. They never shared that information with doctors and patients, those documents show. It was not immediately clear why the two juries returned such differing verdicts. [3]

The Depuy lawyers filed the JNOV the day after this Chicago trial jury verdict in their favor. The Depuy lawyers alleged in the JNOV that the jurors for Mr. Kransky had erred, that their decision was not consistent with evidence before them as the jury in Chicago had sided in their favor after hearing the same evidence.

Mr. Kransky's lawyers won the challenge of the JNOV. The juror's decicision in Mr. Kransky's verdict stood.

During Mr. Kranksy's trial, new evidence came to light that indicated Johnson & Johnson and subsidiary Depuy Orthopadics were internally aware of the Depuy ASR defect years before the official recall and that they had not shared this information with the public nor the medical community.

And again, January 22, 2013 published in The New York Times,
"Maker Aware of 40% Failure in Hip Implant"

An internal analysis conducted by Johnson & Johnson in 2011 not long after it recalled a troubled hip implant estimated that the all-metal device would fail within five years in nearly 40 percent of patients who received it, newly disclosed court records show. [5]

The New York Times in an Editorial in February 2013 wrote about this internal evidence of a company putting profit ahead of patient well being coming to light during Mr. Kransky's trial:

Now there is evidence that a major manufacturer was aware of a serious problem with one of its models yet failed to alert patients or doctors and continued to market it aggressively. [4]

Yet, there had been a great deal already known. In fact, The New York Times reported in early 2012 that the Depuy ASR USA recall was issued weeks after the FDA requested additional safety data from Depuy and turned down their application to continue to sell the device in the USA.

At the same time, the agency told the company that blood tests of some patients who got the all-metal hip showed a "high concentration of metal ions" that it found "concerning," according to the F.D.A. letter, obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act. Officials also wrote that reports from countries where the implant was then being used showed it was performing "somewhat more poorly" than data submitted by the company's DePuy Orthopaedics unit indicated. [...] The Food and Drug Administration's statements were contained in a so-called nonapprovable letter in which the agency confidentially notified DePuy in 2009 that it was turning down the company's application to sell the device in the United States. The bulk of the letter focused on problems that agency reviewers found with study data submitted by DePuy to support its claim that the artificial hip was safe and effective. [2]

The lawyers for Mr. Kransky since defending the JNOV challenge have filed for additional attorneys fees. The attorneys fee was scheduled for June 2013 but a decision on the attorney fees has not been handed down.

The courtroom drama unfolding with the Depuy ASR illustrates how hard the trial can become and why you may need an experienced personal injury lawyer by your side if you have been seriously injured by the negligence of another.

As is the case in the plaintiff lawyers fighting for their clients against Depuy Orthopaedics, trial lawyers fight large and powerful corporations with large amounts of money to hire enough experts and lawyers and push the court system through challenge after challenge.

Most plaintiff personal injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis for the plaintiff, which means that they don't get paid until and only if their client wins.

This also means that a personal injury lawyer for the plaintiff will only take cases that they believe in becasue they put everything into helping their clients and trying to help make them whole.

SOURCES

1. Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure

Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Mo- tion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/civil-procedure.pdf

2. New York Times

Hip Device Phaseout Followed F.D.A. Data Request
By BARRY MEIER
March 22, 2012

3. New York Times

J.&J. Prevails in Defending Its Marketing of Hip Device

By BARRY MEIER

April 16, 2013

4. New York Times

What a Company Knew About Its Metal Hips

Editorial

February 10, 2013

5. New York Times

Maker Aware of 40% Failure in Hip Implant

By BARRY MEIER

January 22, 2013