• Hot Topics

  • Links

    • Case Review Form

      * Denotes required field.


      * First Name

      * Last Name

      * Email Address

      * Phone Number

      Cell Phone Number

      Office Phone Number

      Street Address




      Zip Code

      Please provide the best method and times to contact you:

      Date of birth of injured person

      Name of medical device:

      Please describe any problems or injuries caused by the device:

      Other Info:

      No Yes, I agree to the Parker & Waichman, LLP disclaimers.Click here to review all.

      Yes, I would like to receive the Parker & Waichman, LLP monthly newsletter, InjuryAlert.

      please do not fill out the field below.

Lawsuit Alleges Defective Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Led to Two Revision Surgeries

Filed August 3rd, 2012 Julie Anne Fidler

National law firm Parker Waichman LLP has a filed a lawsuit against Biomet. Inc., Biomet, LLC and Biomet Orthopedics, LLC on behalf of a woman who was implanted with the Biomet M2a Magnum Hip System, a metal-on-metal implant.

The woman claims that after she received the implant in her left hip, the implant failed, forcing her to undergo a revisionary surgery. When the second implant failed, she had to undergo a second surgery. The Plaintiff alleges the implant to suffer from economic damages in the form of lost wages and medical expenses, severe and possibly permanent injuries, pain, suffering and emotional distress.

The lawsuit states that since the Biomet M2a Magnum hip system uses a “monoblock” system, the patient is prohibited from being able to use any type of acetabular liner. As a result, the metal surfaces rub together, causing an excessive amount of chromium and cobalt ions to corrode from the implant. The body can react negatively to these ions, causing pain, looseness, dislocation, squeaking and popping sounds, fluid build-up, and necrosis of bone and soft tissue.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants hid the fact that there have been over 100 adverse event reports associated with the M2a Magnum at the time the Plaintiff received her first implant, and that the Plaintiff would not have agreed to the implant if she had known about the risks associated with it.

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Click Here Now, to Have an Attorney Answer Your
Medical Device Injuries Questions
No Cost - No Obligation!