Zimmer Knee Replacement Recall
Zimmer’s NexGen Complete Knee Solutions for knee replacement was recalled many years ago.
On April 26, 2010, Zimmer issued an “Urgent Device Correction” letter regarding concerns involving the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solutions.
On September 13, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) posted a Class 2 Recall for the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solutions Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) Tibial Components, Locking Screw and Stem Extensions.
Zimmer reported that this Zimmer NexGen recall was due to the number of knee replacement complaints of implanted device loosening and requiring revision surgery.
On December 2, 2010, the FDA issued another Class 2 Recall for the Zimmer NexGen Knee Replacement. This recall was for the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS Flex Gender Femoral Component and Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS Femoral Component. This Recall was due to the Zimmer NexGen Complete Knee Solution LPS Femoral Component and Zimmer NexGen Gender Femoral Component exhibiting a “nonconforming internal CAM radius.”
Possible Case against Zimmer
Recently, a person posted the following question:
I had a TKR (total knee replacement) done on July 2012. A defected recall part was used which led to a second TKR revision perform by a second opinion orthopedic on 8-11-2014. Can I pursue a defective part suit against the Zimmer NexGen company?
It turns out that the woman had complaints immediately following the first surgery and continued to complain to and treat with the surgeon.
The Statute of Limitations in New York to bring a claim for product liability is three years. This can be extended depending on when the person should have known that there was a problem. Since this person complained immediately, her time cannot be extended and it appears her claim against the manufacture is barred.
However, if the surgeon used a known recalled product, a claim may be viable against him. The Statute of Limitations is 2 1/2 years from the date of the malpractice. That claim is also expired, but can be extended pursuant to the continuous treatment doctrine. In this case, the Statute will not expire until February 14, 2016.
Consult with a Lawyer as soon as Possible
This case highlights how important it can be to consult with a personal injury lawyer as soon as you are suspicious that you may have been injured due to the fault of another person or entity.