Sunday, November 24, 2013

More detail on the settlement

DePuy ASR Hip Implant Settlement Criteria and Process

The settlement will impact folks who have had a DePuy ASR hip implant, that was removed or revised before August 31, 2013, it is estimated that would affect approximately 8,000 plaintiffs.
The settlement will be split into two parts. Part A, will guarantee a payment base of $250,000 that can be reduced downwards for mitigating medical factors such as age at implant (older patients will get less), patients smoking at the time of their implant will get less than non smokers, heavier patients as determined by their body mass index will get less than lighter patients, patients who have had multiple prior hip surgeries, prior to the DePuy ASR implantation will have a reduced settlement. Part A settlement will be serviced out of $2 Billion which has been ear marked for this segment.
Part B, will include medical factors that will increase the base settlement, such as medical complications during or after the DePuy ASR explant such as heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, folks who have had a bilateral DePuy ASR explantation etc. Part B settlement will be serviced out of $475 Million which has been ear marked for this segment.

Unacceptable DePuy ASR Hip Failure Rates
The company recalled 93,000 ASR hip implants worldwide in August 2010, saying 12 percent failed within five years. Internal J&J documents show 37 percent of ASR hips failed after 4.6 years. In 2012, the failure rate in Australia climbed to 44 percent within seven years.

Settlement Process
Under the settlement terms, plaintiffs will have to opt in, fill out the special application forms and have them returned to the defense settlement counsel by  January 6, 2014. That is the Registration Process. Then by April 1, 2014, in order to qualify for the Part A and Part B segments, patients will have to supply supporting medical records and evidence of medical complications.
Johnson and Johnson wants 94% of plaintiff participation and the company has the right to walk away from the settlement by June 2014. If all the conditions are met then the company anticipates funding and distributing the settlement amounts by July/August time frame.
All of these dates are tentative, as in any Mass Tort litigation, they are subject to last minute changes and extensions, depending on circumstances..

The settlement doesn’t prevent patients who develop future hip failures from seeking compensation and that may add billions of dollars to the ultimate value of the settlement. J&J also agreed to pay back third party insurance carriers, medicare, medicaid and cover other medical expenses incurred during the removal or revision of the hip implant.

What was the problem with DePuy ASR?
J&J pushed the metal-on-metal implants aggressively, which was first sold in the U.S. in 2005, as a new design that would last 20 years and offer greater range of motion.
Patients claimed that the metal-on-metal implant caused dislocations, pain and revision surgeries. The lawsuits alleged that debris released by the grinding action of the component parts from the chromium and cobalt device caused tissue death and increased metal ions in the bloodstream. This release of metal debris and increased chromium and cobalt levels in the blood, caused a form of blood poisoning known as metallosis.

The company faces a total of about 12,000 suits filed in federal courts and state courts in California, Illinois and New Jersey. The settlement covers the more than 7,500 patients who had surgery to have DePuy hips removed. The remaining claims were filed by patients who haven’t yet had revision surgeries.

The consolidated federal case is In re DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 10-MD-2197, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo)

certain other circumstances, such as multiple revision surgeries, or the occurrence of “certain extraordinary injuries” in the future, could entitle some plaintiffs to a supplemental award.*

J&J Unveils Hip Accord That May Exceed $4 Billion

Nov 20th

Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) agreed to pay at least $2.47 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits over its recalled hip implants, lawyers for the company and patients told a judge in outlining an accord that may be worth more than $4 billion.

The agreement would resolve about 8,000 U.S. suits against J&J’s DePuy unit brought by patients who have already had artificial hips removed, Susan Sharko, one of the company’s lawyers, told U.S. District Judge David Katz yesterday in Toledo, Ohio. The company will pay an average of about $250,000 for each surgery and cover related medical costs, Sharko said

The settlement provides compensation for eligible patients without the delay and uncertainty of protracted litigation,” Andrew Ekdahl, worldwide president of DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction said in a statement.
The settlement, which doesn’t require the judge’s approval, is the second multibillion-dollar accord this month for J&J, the world’s largest seller of health-care products. The company, based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, agreed Nov. 4 to pay $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil probes into the marketing of Risperdal and other medicines.

Litigation Cost

J&J has spent about $993 million on medical costs and informing patients and surgeons about the hip recall, Lorie Gawreluk, a DePuy spokeswoman, has said. J&J set aside an undisclosed amount for litigation, which it increased before June 30, she said.

The company recalled 93,000 ASR hip implants worldwide in August 2010, saying 12 percent failed within five years. Internal J&J documents show 37 percent of ASR hips failed after 4.6 years. Last year, the failure rate in Australia climbed to 44 percent within seven years.

Under the terms of the accord, only plaintiffs who had an ASR hip implanted in the U.S. and had it removed by Aug. 31 are eligible for this settlement, Sharko said. The patients must have had the implant for at least 180 days before having it removed, she said.

The program is structured in two parts, she said. Under one part, patients will receive a base award of $250,000, subject to reductions. Under the other part, the award will go higher for patients who can demonstrate ``extraordinary injuries'' related to their hip implant or removal, Sharko said.
The settlement doesn’t bar patients whose hips fail in the future from seeking compensation, said Steve Skikos, co-leader of a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers overseeing hip cases consolidated before Katz. That may add billions of dollars to the ultimate value of the accord.

New Design

J&J had touted the metal-on-metal implants, first sold in the U.S. in 2005, as a new design that would last 20 years and offer greater range of motion.

As failures mounted, patients complained in lawsuits that the metal-on-metal implant caused dislocations, pain and follow-up surgeries known as revisions. They claimed that debris from the chromium and cobalt device caused tissue death and increased metal ions in the bloodstream.
The company faces a total of about 12,000 suits filed in federal courts and state courts in California, Illinois and New Jersey. The settlement covers the more than 7,500 patients who had surgery to have DePuy hips removed. The remaining claims were filed by patients who haven’t yet had revision surgeries.

The J&J hip settlement dwarfs a 2001 accord Sulzer AG (SUN) reached with patients who claimed that company’s hip and knee implants were defective. Sulzer, based in Winterthur, Switzerland, agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve those suits.

The settlement came as welcome news for Roger Poulter, 55, and his wife, Loretta, 57, of Medford, Wisconsin. Both have sued J&J over multiple hip replacements.
``I'm relieved that they settled the case,'' said Roger Poulter. ``It's been quite a long time.''

Poulter, a high school agriculture teacher, said he and his wife cut their own firewood to heat their home on property where snow piles high in the winter. They both worry about hip dislocations when working on their land, he said.
The consolidated federal case is In re DePuy Orthopedics Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 10-MD-2197, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Toledo).
To contact the reporters on this story: Jef Feeley in federal court in Toledo, Ohio, at; David Voreacos in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, at

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Stryker Hip Lawsuit News: Rottenstein Law Group LLP Explains What DePuy Settlement Means for Stryker Patients

(PRWEB) November 14, 2013
Following news in a Nov. 13 New York Times article that Johnson & Johnson will pay out $4 billion in DePuy settlements of metal-on-metal ASR hip implant lawsuits, the Rottenstein Law Group LLP comments on the status of Stryker lawsuits. Stryker’s Rejuvenate and ABG II are products similar to the ASR, and lawsuits are pending in federal and state courts.
In October, Stryker announced that it was estimating that the cost of litigation for the ABG II and Rejuvenate hip implants will range from $700 million to as much as $1.1 billion, according to an Oct. 23 Wall Street Journal report, "Stryker Says Hip Recall May Cost Up to $1.13 Billion."**

Dov Slansky, an attorney with the Rottenstein Law Group LLP, told CBS Radio on Nov. 13 that the purported DePuy settlement was “encouraging.”

“It’ll give those who have been injured some measure of justice,” he said.
There is no word yet on Stryker settlement talks, but the amount of money the company has set aside shows promise, said Rochelle Rottenstein, RLG’s principal.

“The company clearly is preparing to resolve these lawsuits, whether in court or through settlement offers,” she said. “There is a lot of data that show the alleged dangers of metal-on-metal hips—and certainly the mass settlement by another manufacturer over a similar product could serve to put pressure on Stryker to do the same.”

There are Stryker lawsuits consolidated for pretrial efficiency in federal and state courts. In New Jersey, there are 600 lawsuits consolidated in New Jersey Superior Court before Judge Brian R. Martinotti, according to court documents (In re: Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Stem and the ABG II Modular Hip Stem Litigation; MCL-296, Bergen County Superior Court, New Jersey).

At the federal level, there are about 350 lawsuits consolidated in Minnesota, according to court documents (In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation; MDL-2441, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). There have not been any trials yet, because federal litigation is still in its early stages.

Johnson & Johnson Said to Agree to $4 Billion Settlement Over Hip Implants

New York Times
Nov 12th, 2013

Johnson & Johnson has tentatively agreed to a settlement that could reach up to $4 billion to resolve thousands of lawsuits filed by patients injured by a flawed all-metal replacement hip, said two lawyers briefed on the plan.
The tentative plan, which must win court approval, represents one of the largest payouts for product liability claims involving a medical device.
A spokeswoman for the company’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit declined to comment on the possibility of a settlement. An announcement about the plan is expected in the coming days, the lawyers said.
The agreement will include those patients who have already been forced to have the device, known as the Articular Surface Replacement, or A.S.R., removed and replaced with another artificial hip, said the lawyers who spoke about the agreement only on the condition of anonymity.
Under the deal, each patient would receive about $350,000 on average in compensation, though that figure will vary depending on factors like a patient’s age and medical condition.
The precise value of the settlement is unclear because lawyers for patients are still trying to estimate how many of the 12,000 related lawsuits involve patients who had a replacement. Lawyers believe that number may be 7,000 to 8,000 cases.
The final cost of the deal to Johnson & Johnson could rise, depending on how many claimants who received the device undergo replacement operations in the future, the lawyers said. Under the plan, patients who have not had a replacement would not receive compensation, the lawyers said.
The A.S.R. hip was sold by DePuy until mid-2010, when the company recalled it amid sharply rising early failure rates. The device, which had a metal ball and a metal cup, sheds metallic debris as it wears, generating particles that have damaged tissue in some patients or caused crippling injuries.
DePuy officials have long insisted that they acted appropriately in recalling the device when they did. However, internal company documents disclosed during the trial of a patient lawsuit this year showed that DePuy officials were long aware that the hip had a flawed design and was failing prematurely at a high rate.
Many artificial hips last 15 years or more before they wear out and need to be replaced. But by 2008, data from orthopedic databases outside the United States also showed that the A.S.R. was failing at high rates in patients after just a few years.
Internal DePuy projections estimate that it will fail in 40 percent of those patients in five years, a rate eight times higher than for many other hip devices.
It had been long anticipated that DePuy would try to settle the case. Of the two lawsuits that have gone to trial, the company lost one lawsuit and won the other one.
However, it was facing the start of several new trials around the country with the prospect of large damage awards. The outlines of a settlement proposal were reported Tuesday by Bloomberg News.
The hip was first sold by DePuy in 2003 outside the United States for use in an alternative hip replacement procedure called resurfacing. Two years later, DePuy started selling another version for use here in standard hip replacements that used the same cup component as the resurfacing device. Only the standard version was sold in the United States; both were sold outside the country.
About 93,000 patients received an A.S.R., about one-third of them in the United States.
Problems with the design first came to light in Australia and England just a few years after its marketing began. But DePuy officials insisted for years to surgeons who complained about that device that patient problems reflected their surgical technique rather than the implant’s design.
Last year, The New York Times reported that DePuy executives decided in 2009 to phase out the A.S.R. and sell existing inventories weeks after the Food and Drug Administration asked the company for more safety data about the implant.
The agency also told the company at that time that it was rejecting its efforts to sell the resurfacing version of the device in the United States because of concerns about “high concentration of metal ions” in the blood of patients who received it.
DePuy never disclosed the F.D.A. ruling to regulators in other countries, where it was still marketing the resurfacing version of the implant.
The head of DePuy’s orthopedic unit, Andrew Ekdahl, oversaw the introduction of the hip and was warned by a company consultant in 2008 that the implant appeared to have a design flaw, according to internal DePuy documents disclosed during a trial earlier this year.
When DePuy recalled the hip in 2010, it announced a program in which it offered to pay the medical costs of a replacement procedure.
All-metal replacement hips like the A.S.R. were once highly popular with orthopedic surgeons who believed the devices would last longer than traditional replacement devices made of plastic and metal. But the metal devices are rarely used anymore because of their high early failure rates.
While the settlement, if approved, would resolve much of the litigation against DePuy involving that device, it continues to face thousands of lawsuits involving another all-metal hip that it no longer sells called the Pinnacle.

J&J DePuy ASR Settles Metal Hip Lawsuits for $4 Billion

Australian Orthopaedic Association register identifies hip resurfacing implant with higher than anticipated revision rate


November 12, 2013
In their annual report, the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry identified the Cormet cemented resurfacing head and the Cormet HAP bi-coated cementless resurfacing head as having higher than anticipated rates of revision when used individually or in combination with the Cormet 2000 HAP, which is no longer being used, according to data from the report.
The report, which was prepared by Stephen Graves, MBBS, DPhil, FRACS, FA, OrthA, of the Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA), contains data on hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes in Australia between September 1999 and December 2012.
“There is one resurfacing device being identified for the first time, the Cormet/Cormet prosthesis combination,” Graves and colleagues wrote in the AOA National Joint Replacement Registry. “The Cormet/Cormet has been used in 374 procedures and has a 10-year cumulative percent revision of 21.6%.”
Of the 50 revisions cited in the report, 62% were related to the femoral and acetabular component, while 30% were related to the femoral component alone. Other reasons for revision included loosening/lysis in 34% of cases, fracture in 24% of cases and metal-related pathology in 24% of cases.

Over 5,200 Cases Now Filed over All-Metal Pinnacle hips in the Texas MDL

Bernstein Liebhard

According to a Case List update from last week, a total of 5,201 lawsuits were pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas as of October 31st

Number of Plaintiffs Continues to Grow in the MDL litigation

Rottenstein Law Group

According to the JPML, there are now 8,313 plaintiffs suing DePuy, and its parent company Johnson & Johnson (J&J), over injuries allegedly caused by its DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System and ASR Hip Resurfacing System. Although it was established in December of 2010, the MDL is still growing. As of September 11, 2013, there were 8,265 cases in the MDL, meaning 48 plaintiffs have joined the proceeding for a 0.6 percent increase in one month. - See more at:

U.K. moves to stop use of all-metal hips in government-funded hospitals

Fierce Medical Devices
November 4th, 2013

Metal-on-metal hips have been in trouble around the world for years due to heightened safety concerns, and now the U.K. government will ban their use in National Health Service hospitals. recently reported the news, which affects all publicly funded hospitals in the U.K. The government made its decision in the wake of new guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence that urged the action, following results of yet another new study that outlined high failure rates for all-metal hips made by Johnson & Johnson's ($JNJ) DePuy and many of its rivals.

In the U.S., as the article noted, J&J, Stryker ($SYK), Biomet and others face thousands of lawsuits alleging that the manufacturers foisted faulty metal hip implants onto the world, leading to legions of patient injuries. While the FDA hasn't banned the product outright, a number of companies, including J&J/DePuy, have initiated recalls of the suspect product. The U.K.'s action adds urgency to a call for further action in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The U.K.'s movement to further limit the use of all-metal hips in the market comes as lawsuits the product class has spawned continue to wind their way through court systems in the U.S. and elsewhere. J&J/DePuy is awaiting its first federal trial over the company's allegedly faulty ASR hips, though a U.S. district judge in Ohio pushed back a planned late-September start date by at least three more months to enable proper scheduling of expert witnesses.

J&J/DePuy faces up to 11,500 lawsuits alleging its now-recalled ASR hips injured patients. The company recently settled two suits and has said it would leave the metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-metal implant business by the end of 2014, citing declining physician use and stricter FDA regulations

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Request to Stay in DePuy Pinnacle MDL Granted

October 28, 2013 By: Hip Replacements
      U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of the Northern District of Texas has granted a request to stay most of the pending DePuy Pinnacle lawsuits in multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 2244, with the exception of a small selection of bellwether trials. These bellwether cases are moving forward toward their trial dates. The request to stay was filed by all involved parties and the Judge’s Order granting the request was issued on September 30, 2013. It has been anticipated that the stay will remain in effect until the conclusion of the bellwether trials. Pending any possible delays, the trials are expected to begin in September 2014.

Bellwether trials expected to hint at future trends

MDL No. 2244 centralizes all complaints filed against DePuy Orthopaedics with regards to the company’s Pinnacle medical device, a type of artificial hip replacement. The MDL was formed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in May 2011 for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the litigation process. The formation of an MDL is a common occurrence when large numbers of plaintiffs file similar lawsuits against a particular defendant. By joining the MDL, the plaintiffs retain their rights to an individual trial, yet share pretrial proceedings to avoid duplicative discovery and contradictory rulings. Currently, there are more than 4,800 DePuy Pinnacle lawsuits pending in MDL No. 2244.

The bellwether cases were selected as the first cases to go to trial. Bellwether trials in an MDL serve as a method of gauging the reactions of juries to evidence and testimony. Most often, the involved parties use bellwether trials as a means to anticipate future trends in the litigation. For example, if a substantial jury award is handed down for the first bellwether trial, the defendants may be more amenable toward settlement negotiations for future cases.

The remaining DePuy Pinnacle complaints in the MDL will also have their day in court. A motion to stay is not the same action as a motion to dismiss; these lawsuits have simply been placed on hold for the time being. Granting a request to stay is a common occurrence in mass litigation proceedings

Stryker Recall May Now Cost Company Between $700 Million and $1.13 Billion in Litigation Expenses, Related Charges

Digital Journal
Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports

New York, NY (PRWEB) October 25, 2013
A metal hip manufacturer now facing hundreds of Stryker recall ( claims over its Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck hip stems disclosed this week that it may end up spending upwards of $1 billion to resolve litigation costs and other expenses associated with the devices, Bernstein Liebhard LLP reports.
According to a Wall Street Journal report published on October 23rd, Stryker Orthopaedics indicates that the cost of its hip replacement recall, which was issued on July 6, 2012 and affected some 20,000 Rejuvenate and ABG II modular-neck hip stems, could total anywhere from $700 million to $1.13 billion.*

Stryker’s previous estimations of its recall related expenses were between $400 million to $660 million, according to the WSJ report. As of October 2013, over 600 lawsuits alleging pain, swelling, metallosis and other complications stemming from the recalled metal hip replacements have been filed in federal and state courts throughout the U.S.
“As Stryker notes, the ultimate total cost to resolve these matters will depend on a number factors, including the number of patients seeking testing and treatment, the number of patients requiring revision surgeries and the amount of third-party insurance recoveries,” says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective drugs and medical devices, including the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip replacement implants. The Firm is also offering free and confidential case evaluations to individuals who may have been injured as a result of these devices.
Stryker Recall

Recent court records indicate that some 380 claims stemming from the Stryker recall, which was announced on July 2012 after post-surveillance data indicated the potential for the Rejuvenate and ABG II hip stems to fret and corrode at the modular-neck junction, have been filed in a multicounty litigation established in New Jersey. Cases filed in the proceeding underway in Atlantic County Superior Court similarly allege that Stryker failed to adequately warn about the potential for this complication to cause pain, swelling, metallosis and other complications in recipients. (In Re Stryker Rejuvenate Hip Stem and the ABG II Modular Hip Stem Litigation, No. 296)

Since its recall, the manufacturer has advised on its website that all individuals who received the Rejuvenate and ABG II hip devices undergo routine cross-sectional imaging and blood testing to monitor for elevated metal levels in the blood stream, whether or not they are experiencing symptoms associated with early device failure.**

At the federal court level, documents show approximately 290 similar actions against Stryker pending in a federal litigation established in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. (In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2441

Read more:

DePuy hip implant federal litigation postponed for possibly 90 days

Digital Journal

October 25, 2013 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Last month, the federal judge presiding over the DePuy Orthopaedics multi-district litigation decided to delay the first federal trial regarding the company's recalled ASR hip implants. Originally set to begin on September 9 - and then postponed the first time to September 24 - the order by U.S. District Court Judge David A. Katz postponed the trial for another possible 90 days on the grounds that scheduling expert witnesses has become an "extremely difficult task."
This particular case was to be the first federal trial among the nearly 8,000 similar federal actions filed against DePuy, which is a unit of Johnson & Johnson. Specifically, victims in these federal actions - actions that have been consolidated in one federal jurisdiction under Judge Katz - allege that their DePuy hip implants were defective and caused them severe injury.
In total, it is estimated that there are over 11,000 state and federal lawsuits pending in the U.S. involving these recalled hip implants. And, according to recent reports by Bloomberg, Johnson & Johnson is currently considering a settlement that would exceed $3 billion, or roughly $300,000 per victim.

Read more:

Second DePuy ASR Hip Settlement Negotiated Before Trial

MacDonald vs. DePuy Orthopaedics has reached a resolution before going to trial in New Jersey on October 21. A DePuy ASR hip settlement was negotiated at the pretrial conference on October 8. Bergen County District Judge Brian R. Martinotti did not elaborate on the settlement, but wrote that “the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice upon receipt of a fully executed stipulation signed by all counsel.”

DePuy hip settlements

Last week, Harris Martin reported that an ASR hip lawsuit scheduled for San Francisco Superior Court in September was also quietly resolved before a court hearing. The MacDonald case was going to be the first of the coordinated New Jersey cases to go to trial. The others – Coughlin and Gullo – are to be tried together soon, with a case management conference scheduled for November 21.

Details of the DePuy ASR hip settlement amount were not released, but Bloomberg News reports that Johnson & Johnson is looking to resolve as many as 11,500 U.S. cases by early next year, weighing a total settlement amount exceeding more than $3 billion. Under this agreement, plaintiffs would receive around $300,000 each.

DePuy spokeswoman Lorie Gawreluk told Bloomberg News that “reports about a possible resolution of the litigation are premature and speculative, including any estimates of resolution amounts.” But she did say that the company has spent $993 million on medical costs and patient information about the ASR recall of 37,000 devices in the U.S. The 2010 recall came shortly after a report indicated that over 12% of the devices failed within five years, causing damage in the body from metal debris, replacement surgeries and pain.

DePuy ASR hip settlement negotiations a better deal for J&J?

Back in March, J&J lost its first trial over the ASR device in California Court and had to pay plaintiff Loren Kransky an $8.3 million award. Jurors concluded that the device was defective and that the company didn’t properly warn patients and doctors of the risks, but did not rule for punitive damages against the manufacturer.

Six weeks later, a Chicago jury ruled in favor of DePuy and rejected a defective device claim made by an Illinois nurse in Strum vs. DePuy Orthopaedics. Defense attorneys successfully argued that Ms. Strum had a hypersensitivity to the implant and that she received no pain relief when it was replaced with a different device. Charles Adeyanju, one of the jurors involved in the case said that there were “a lot of unanswered questions” and that the case “wasn’t substantial enough.”

What’s next for the DePuy hip settlements?

Upcoming trials are scheduled for state courts in West Palm Beach, Florida in November; Chicago, Illinois in December; Hackensack, New Jersey in January; and Los Angeles, California in January. In addition to the state court cases, U.S. District Judge David Katz is overseeing at least 8,457 federal cases consolidated in the Northern District of Ohio under MDL 2197.

Lawyers involved in the litigation say that it will be fascinating to see how the mass-tort implant cases will unfold, given the complexity of the various injuries and the substantial amount of money involved. Factors like age, extent of injuries, the number of surgeries performed to correct the defect, and the medical evidence of the case will all be weighed against the defense counsel’s argument to determine whether these cases actually make it to trial, as well as the amount of the settlements or awards if plaintiffs are successful in making a claim.

It’s believed Johnson & Johnson will look for a way to negotiate a grid to reach a DePuy ASR hip settlement based on five or six variables that can be plugged in and altered to determine the value of each claim. They will need to overcome obstacles such as the number of years they’ll be held liable for paying claims; whether they will need to reimburse Medicare for claims paid; and the amount of compensation owed for extreme medical cases that involve long hospital stays and multiple surgeries.