Parker Waichman LLP

Rival Tried to Block FDA Approval of Smith & Nephew’s Birmingham Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement Device

Wright Medical Inc. took steps in to 2006 to convince the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to reject pre-market approval of rival Smith & Nephew’s Birmingham metal-on-metal hip implant.  Wright Medical, which makes two metal-on-metal hip replacement devices, the Conserve and the Lieneage device, filed a citizen petition with the FDA in asserting that […]

Smith & Nephew’s Birmingham Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement Device

Metal-on-Metal Hip Replacement Device

Wright Medical Inc. took steps in to 2006 to convince the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to reject pre-market approval of rival Smith & Nephew’s Birmingham metal-on-metal hip implant.  Wright Medical, which makes two metal-on-metal hip replacement devices, the Conserve and the Lieneage device, filed a citizen petition with the FDA in asserting that Smith & Nephew’s pre-market approval application was inadequate to prove safety and effectiveness of the Birmingham.

According to MassDevice.com, the Birmingham metal-on-metal hip implant first came to market in 1997 in the U.K., and was the first all-metal device on the market.  It was sold by Midland Medical Technologies, which was acquired by Smith & Nephew in 2004.  The launch of the Birmingham prompted other device makers to quickly bring their versions of metal-on-metal hip implants to market, including the Zimmer Durom Cup, and DePuy’s ASR and Pinnacle devices.

In 2006, Smith & Nephew applied for FDA premarket approval of Birmingham devices.  According to MassDevice.com, Wright argued that the clinical data behind the Birmingham application was flawed because it covered only a single surgeon’s cases – the inventor of the device, Dr. Derek McMinn.  The petition filed by the company read in part:

“The PMA for the BHR – which rests on a retrospective, uncontrolled case series at a single center by a single physician without any protocol and with incomplete follow-up – is not scientifically valid and does not satisfy the agency’s standards for safety and effectiveness.”

“Smith & Nephew tries to create the impression that this was a multi-center trial. Yet, at the panel meeting, the acting panel chairperson stated that the data was ‘an unusual PMA based on a retrospective study designed by a single surgeon based on a British data set.”

The FDA eventually granted two pre-market approvals for the Birmingham, first in May 2006 and another in October of that year for additional sizes

Since the August 2010 recall of  DePuy Orthopaedic’s  ASR hip replacement, the entire class of metal-on-metal hip implants has come under scrutiny, as a number of studies have found evidence that that the devices can shed dangerous amounts of chromium and cobalt into patients’ bloodstreams. Last month, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that it had received 16,800 negative event reports involving metal hips between 2000 and 2011. Of those, more than 14,000 involved revision surgeries, in which a defective implant was removed.  Recently, the FDA’s Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel recommended that metal-on-metal hip implant patients undergo regular monitoring to ensure their devices are not failing.   The panel also called for new warning labels for all-metal hip implants, including warnings regarding their association with the development of pseudotumors and high levels of metal ions in patients’ blood.

There are currently more than 4,000 lawsuits pending against DePuy’s recalled ASR hip implants in a multidistrict litigation underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.  A multidistrict litigation for lawsuits involving Wright’s Conserve hip replacement device is underway in the Northern District Journal, while lawsuits over the all-metal version of DePuy’s Pinnacle device have been consolidated in federal court in Texas.  Legal claims involving the   Zimmer Durom Cup, which was recalled in 2008, have been centralized in federal court in New Jersey.  This week, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) will hear oral arguments regarding the possible consolidation of lawsuits involving Biomet’s M2a-Magnum Hip Replacement System.

What Our Clients Say About Us
We have worked with thousands of clients and we appreciate them and their positive reviews. Here are just a few recent client reviews...
5 Star Reviews 150
Positive: Professionalism , Quality , Responsiveness , Value I am Very Satisfied with my experience that I have had with the Firm.The Paralegal assigned to my case is Christina Morace, she is excellent.She was very responsive to all of my inquires and always made me feel like I was her only client. In my opinion she should be a Valued Employee at the Firm, she represents PW very well.
Frank V. DeGarcia
2 years ago
5 Star Reviews 150
Alex explored the position of each defendant to assist in making an informed decision on my part. I appreciate his efforts to explore options and resolve the case. Thank you for your diligence.
asha bell
a year ago
5 Star Reviews 150
I couldn’t say more good things about Daniel Burke. He was there every moment that I needed him. Thank you so very much for all that you did.
Edgar Poole
7 years ago

Why Choose Us to Help You?

We Take Care of Everything
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
No Recovery = No Legal Fees
We work on a contingency-fee basis, meaning that we only get paid from a portion of your settlement or jury award. If you don't get compensation, you owe us nothing.
Decades of Experience
Your situation is stressful enough: Let us take on the deadlines, paperwork, investigation, and litigation. We'll handle every detail so you don't have to worry.
Respected by Our Peers
Judges, insurance adjusters, and fellow attorneys all speak highly of our skills, and we've earned numerous accolades, including a flawless rating from AVVO.
We Have Many Locations To Serve You
We have the experience and the skilled litigators to win your case. Contact us and speak with a real attorney who can help you.
Long Island – Nassau
Parker Waichman LLP
6 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY 11050
Long Island – Suffolk
Parker Waichman LLP
201 Old Country Road – Suite 145
Melville, NY 11747
New York
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Queens
Parker Waichman LLP
118-35 Queens Boulevard, Suite 400
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Brooklyn
Parker Waichman LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West
One Pierrepont Plaza, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
New Jersey
Parker Waichman LLP
80 Main Street, Suite 265
West Orange, NJ 07052
Florida
Parker Waichman LLP
27299 Riverview Center Boulevard
Suite 108
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Nationwide Service
Parker Waichman LLP
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038