Quantcast

Patient sues medical device manufacturer over defective knee replacement

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Patient sues medical device manufacturer over defective knee replacement

State Court
F47b1f05 1841 48fa a11e 0c8d6d7280cd

Judge | https://www.pexels.com/

A shocking lawsuit has been filed against a prominent medical device manufacturer, alleging severe defects in their knee replacement systems. On June 18, 2024, Michael Kelly filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against Exactech U.S., Inc., citing multiple grievances related to product liability and negligence.

The case centers around an Exactech total knee replacement system that was implanted into Michael Kelly on August 24, 2016, at Stanford Hospital. According to the complaint, the device allowed oxygen to diffuse into a plastic insert before implantation, leading to oxidation and premature deterioration. This defect necessitated a revision surgery on July 20, 2022. Kelly claims he only became aware of the defect on July 1, 2022, when Exactech issued a recall for the product. "Plaintiff never suspected that the Exactech total knee replacement system was defective until July 1, 2022," reads the complaint.

Kelly's legal team argues that Exactech knew or should have known about these defects through scientific knowledge available before and after the product's design and distribution. The lawsuit accuses Exactech of failing to adequately warn consumers about potential risks and side effects associated with their knee replacement system. The plaintiff contends that ordinary consumers could not have recognized these risks without proper warnings from the manufacturer.

The complaint outlines five causes of action: strict liability for manufacturing defects and failure to warn; negligence in design, manufacture, sale; negligence for failure to recall or retrofit; and negligence for failure to warn. Each cause of action is meticulously detailed with allegations that point towards Exactech's purported oversight and negligence. For instance, it states that "defendants performed inadequate evaluation and testing" which would have revealed the propensity for the knee replacement system to fail prematurely.

Kelly is seeking both general (non-economic) damages and special (economic) damages according to proof presented during trial. Additionally, he seeks pre-judgment interest as permitted by law and costs associated with the suit. The lawsuit also demands a jury trial to resolve these issues.

Representing Michael Kelly are attorneys Michael A. Kelly and Jeffrey A. Clause from Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger based in San Francisco. The case is being overseen by Judge C. Roman under Case ID: 24CV441374.

More News