News

Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc, a Johnson & Johnson company, recently issued a recall of its ASR Hip Implant Devices received from 2003 through the present. Both Depuy and Johnson & Johnson have been sued in the litigation. The FDA first began receiving complaints of the Hip Implant Devices in 2008, yet the Defendants continued to aggressively market their hip products and did not issue a recall until August of 2010.

The Hip Implant Devices in question are the Depuy ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing Platform. These devices are prone to failure within approximately two years of implementation although the devices are meant to last for more than 15 years. Part of the failure mechanism is suspected to be that the hip implant device’s "ball" and "socket" bearings that make up the hip-joint deteriorates and creates metal debris even through normal activities, which contaminates the surrounding bone and tissue causing inflammation, pain, reduced mobility, and even death of the surrounding bone and tissue.

This litigation is new and much further investigation is sure to come. For now, if you have received a recall letter from your doctor, orthopaedist or defendants, you can contact Lambert & Nelson, PLC for free information regarding your rights, remedies and potential causes of action available to you. Even if you have not received a notification of the recall but you have received a hip replacement since 2003, please contact Lambert & Nelson, PLC, and we will be happy to help you investigate whether or not you received a defective hip implant.

Lambert & Nelson, PLC can be reached at the toll-free number listed below and on the Contact Us page of this website. Our doors are open during normal business hours, so please feel free to stop by for a free consultation. Additionally, you can fill out the claim information form below regarding Defective Hip Implants, and Lambert & Nelson, PLC will evaluate the information you submit and call you for a follow-up evaluation at no charge to you.

It is imperative that you do not delay in seeking legal representation regarding the possibility that you received a defective hip implant. Do not contact Depuy or Johnson & Johnson regarding your claim. Consult your doctor regarding any health risks as a result of your defective hip implant and seek legal representation immediately.

Cayce Peterson of Lambert & Nelson, PLC recently argued a Motion to Compel certain information from Audubon Insurance Company in the case titled Finger v. Audubon, Case No. 09-8071 in New Orleans Civil District Court before Chief Judge Llyod J. Medley, Jr. At issue in the dispute were claims handling procedures relating to Audubon’s denial of coverage for damages caused by Chinese manufactured drywall. At oral argument, Cayce Peterson, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, argued that the claims handling procedures of prior Chinese drywall claims were relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim against Audubon Insurance Company. Also at issue in the Motion to Compel was the production of proposed changes, amendments, and endorsements to Audubon’s homeowners insurance policies as a result of the Chinese drywall litigation. Much like with mold damage in the past, insurance companies often create endorsements and amendments to insurance policies to exclude types of damages which they do not wish to insure. Plaintiffs argued in the Finger case that this information is relevant and must be produced to Plaintiffs because subsequent changes to insurance policy language to exclude damages from Chinese drywall demonstrates that Audubon did not contemplate excluding damages from Chinese drywall in the policy it issued to the Plaintiffs in the Finger case.

Hugh Lambert and Cayce Peterson successfully defeated a Motion for Summary Judgment in a Chinese Drywall case in New Orleans Civil District Court before Judge Piper Griffin captioned Finger v. Interior Exterior, et al. Case No. 2009-7004. The Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by Rockhill Insurance Company, an insurer of McMath Construction, and sought to enforce an insurance occurrence trigger called the "Manifestation Theory" which would have limited insurance coverage related to damages caused by Chinese Drywall to only the policy in place when the damages were "discovered" (although the definition of "discovery" was also a point of contention at the hearing). Regardless, Judge Griffin denied Rockhill’s Motion and invited the defendant to appeal their case the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The victory is another step in the right direction for homeowners with Chinese Drywall, who are counting on insurance coverage from builders, installers, and distributors to pay for the remediation of their homes.