Part one of x can be found here: http://www.mydepuyhiprecall.com/2013/06/time-is-running-out-in-ny-to-file-suit.html. My questions are noted in that post.
Part Two: http://www.mydepuyhiprecall.com/2013/06/time-is-running-out-in-ny-to-file-suit_18.html
Part Three: Questioning of Dr Schmalzried part One (I shortened the questions and answers for expediency. So these are not quotes unless quotes are present.)
Part Four: Schmalzried (Dr S) part Two of his testimony
Part Five : Schamalzried (Dr S) part three of his testimony below -summary- (I am taking only snippets of the conversation that I find to be problematic in the examination. This was a long trial and obviously, I can only summarize certain things which will answer questions I have about what transpired here.
The first topic of the afternoon was re a paper Dr. S co-authored in 2005. The plaintiff's counsel asked about footnote 11 in that report which was paper by a tribologist, Dr Bobyn. Dr. Bobyn's paper stated a few things:
- "Little is known about the distribution of metal and ions."
- They certainly do have a right to know.
- Ions travel through the blood and particles travel through the lymph system or your immune system.
- Yes but mostly Chromium
[A discussion about edge ware came up and the lawyer wanted to know whether the design team was aware of that at the time. ]
- No. No one was talking about that on the design team.
So no one on the design team mentioned that Mr. John Fisher in Leeds England was working on edgeware in his paper in 2000?
- Not that I recall
- That was our goal.
- No (he said he didn't understand the legal implication of this.)
- I don't recall anyone telling me that
It says in the 2004 paper that metals may react differently than poly, in the normal immune response and that it is recognized that the Cr and Co particles have greater potential or cytotoxicity than poly particles and the cell may incapable of the same inflammatory response [microphages come and "eat" the offending particles]
True when you wrote it?
- I'd have to check.
- I wouldn't say it like that..
end of 3 of 4 parts for Dr S's testimony.
Well, as per my summary at the end of part two, I have not seen anything redeeming about this testimony either. In fact, the comments seem to become more and more problematic as far as I am concerned. The key take away from this testimony from my perspective is again, gets back to the "What did he know?" When did he know it?" "What did he do about what he knew?"
He clearly knew and the whole design team knew the uncertainties surrounding both the ion levels and the systemic risks including but not limited to cancer. Given that Depuy had the Pinnacle hip on the market at that time and it seemed to have a good track record at the time, I am not clearly seeing the reason the ASR was developed.
I recall that the ASR might have been undertaken originally to address the competition in the market with the Birmingham resurfacing product in England but the so called "Alpha project" was killed. Depuy never came to market with a resurfacing product. There is some information gap here from my perspective. Perhaps it's here but I missed it? Maybe it will come up later.
The 4th and final part of this testimony will be addressed next and then I will move on to other witnesses.