Here are six insights.
1. During the four-month-long trial, 312 claimants argued DePuy’s implants produced metal debris that damaged surrounding tissues and caused pain, swelling, trouble walking and numbness.
2. Judge Geraldine Andrews ruled material loss was a known consequence of any type of hip implant, regardless of material.
3. Plaintiffs also contended the Ultamet device didn’t perform as well as other non-MOM implants and had an increased likelihood of damage compared to other products.
4. Judge Andrews determined DePuy’s device had no added risk of harm and performed as well or better than other implants. She stated the device should be compared to other prostheses on the market the same time it was introduced.
5. The ruling established principles that apply to all consumer products within the Consumer Protection Act, according to Samantha Silver, a partner at Kennedys who worked on behalf of DePuy.
6. DePuy stopped selling the Ultamet device in the U.K. in 2013, according to the BBC, citing low clinician usage and a decline in sales in the U.S. and Europe.
“The decision will have significance for all manufacturers and distributors, not just those in the life sciences industry, as well as their insurers. It provides manufacturers with confidence that the courts can take into account the benefits and the inherent risks of certain products, for example, in cases where there is a known side effect or complication and the overall benefits outweigh the risks,” Ms. Silver said.
More articles on supply chain:
Cook Medical’s Dave Reed wins supply chain leadership award — 4 quick facts
How ASCs can eliminate lurking OR inefficiencies to drive down costs
4 major trends to watch in the orthopedic medical device market
