

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP is a national law firm representing people injured by defective medical devices such as hip and knee replacements, including Zimmer knee replacement devices.
Our attorneys are reviewing claims of people who underwent knee replacement surgery with the Zimmer NexGen® CR-Flex, NexGen® LPS-Flex or NexGen® Complete Knee Solution MIS Tibial Components and suffered pain or other side effects indicative of failure of the device or had to have the device replaced in a revision surgery.
Senior Partner Hunter J. Shkolnik has been appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee In re: Zimmer Nexgen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2272) pending in the Northern District of Illinois.
The New York Times has reported that Dr. Richard A. Berger, who worked for Zimmer Inc. designing surgical tools and artificial joints and who trained other doctors how to use the devices, warned Zimmer about problems with the NexGen CR-Flex in 2006. (1)
Dr. Berger was a top consultant for Zimmer, earning more than $8 million from the company over the course of their decade long relationship. Of about 1000 hip and knee replacement surgeries Dr. Berger performed each year, he used Zimmer devices in nearly all of them.
In 2006 when he began to see loosening problems with the NexGen CR-Flex in patients implanted with the device the year before, he notified Zimmer. He notified them again when he later had to replace some of the devices and the company implied that the device failures were due to his surgical technique and not a problem with the device necessitating a NexGen recall.
Dr. Berger then collaborated with Dr. Craig Della Valle, both of Rush University Medical Center, in a study of 108 of their patients implanted with the NexGen CR-Flex device. Nine (8.3%) of their patients experienced pain and loosening that required surgery to replace the failed NexGen CR-Flex device and 39 (36%) patients showed evidence of radiographic loosening of the device. (2) Zimmer did not issue a NexGen recall after reviewing results of this study.
Senator Charles E. Grassley found the article in The New York Times so alarming he wrote a letter to David Dvorak, President and Chief Executive Officer of Zimmer Holdings Inc., demanding answers. (3)
Zimmer has stated it investigated Dr. Berger’s claims and disagreed with them. The manufacturer claims that post market data from the Australian market show the NexGen CR-Flex has a low revision rate. No one in the U.S. tracks long-term performance of knee replacement devices.
Many people with a Zimmer knee replacement may be confused by incorrect or misleading information on the internet about a Zimmer NexGen recall.
As of October 30, 2011, the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database has recorded:(4)
Despite these reports of failures of the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex, NexGen LPS-Flex and NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Tibial Components, the manufacturer has not issued a total NexGen recall.
In September 2010, Zimmer issued a NexGen recall only for the NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Tibial Components. (5) According to the FDA recall notice, the manufacturer received 114 Medical Device Reports (MDRs) of patients with this device who needed a revision surgery to replace the implant because it had become loose.
However, this NexGen recall did not take NexGen Complete Knee Solution MIS Tibial Components off the market. The manufacturer instead revised the implant’s Surgical Technique and Instructions for Use to warn doctors they should fully cement surfaces of the tibial component and recommend they use of a drop down stem extension.
Zimmer Inc., the manufacturer, did not test these Zimmer knee replacement devices in people to determine if they were safe before placing them on the market because they indicated to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the implants were substantially equivalent to a device already approved for use.
You may have valuable legal rights. Our attorneys are offering a free legal consultation to people injured by any of these Zimmer knee replacement devices. You may have a case even if Zimmer has not issued a NexGen recall.
We help people injured by defective medical devices hold the manufacturers responsible.
(1) The New York Times. (2010, June 19). Surgeon vs. Knee Maker: Who’s Rejecting Whom? Retrieved October 30, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20knee.html?pagewanted=1
(2) Zimmer Holdings, Inc. (2010, March 11). Statement on the Zimmer NexGen® CR-Flex Porous
Femoral Component . Retrieved October 30, 2011, from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC): http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1136869/
000095012310023796/c56948exv99w1.htm
(3) Grassley, Senator Charles E. (2010, July 29). Letter to Zimmer Holdings, Inc. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from www.NYTimes.com: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/device-letter.pdf
(4) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2011, October 30). MAUDE - Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from www.FDA.gov: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/textsearch.cfm
(5) Zimmer, Inc. (2010, September 13). Class 2 RecallNEXGEN COMPLETE KNEE SOLUTION MIS TIBIAL COMPONENTS, LOCKING SCREW AND STEM EXTENSIONS. Retrieved October 30, 2011, from www.FDA.gov: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh
/cfdocs/cfRes/resCollection_2.cfm?ID=92118&CREATE_DT=2010-09-13
Prescription medications are a valuable resource for many people suffering acute or chronic medical conditions. Most Americans will take a pharmaceutical drug at some point in their life. When pharmaceutical companies test these medications for safety and ensure labeling carries clear directions and warnings of possible medication side effects or drug interactions, these medications may substantially increase the quality of life and life expectancy.
Unfortunately, serious or potentially fatal adverse medication side effects of many pharmaceutical drugs only become known after they have been on the market for a while and large numbers of people are affected. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates pharmaceutical drugs. However, defective drugs sometimes make it to the market because the pharmaceutical company did not disclose the drug side effects during clinical trials or communicate the consequences of long-term use. When this occurs, the FDA requires an update to the labeling to warn of drug side effects risk or determines it is a defective drug and issues a drug recall. If the drug company fails to do this, you and your doctor have no way to know the dangers. People affected by defective drugs should consult with a personal injury lawyer such as Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP to find out their legal options.
The FDA approves drugs based partly on efficacy and drug side effects of clinical trials, and pharmaceutical companies sometimes perform clinical trials after a drug is on the market, but the way the pharmaceutical industry performs clinical trials has fallen under scrutiny.
A 2010 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that prescription drug trials conducted outside the United States and used as a basis for U.S. drug approvals lack oversight by the FDA. In 2008, 80% of FDA drug approvals were based in part on foreign clinical trial data. 8% included only foreign study data. Yet in 2008, the FDA inspected less than 1% of foreign clinical trial sites. The investigation also found the FDA is completely unaware of many foreign clinical trials or their results because pharmaceutical companies or drug sponsors often do not submit Investigational New Drug (IND) forms to notify the agency.
A study funded by the U.S. government and published August 2010 in Annals of Internal Medicine entitled “Outcome Reporting among Drug Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov” examined 546 clinical drug trials conducted between 2000 and 2006. The study found that clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry were dramatically more likely to report positive drug outcomes than were trials funded by other sources.
Just in September 2010, the FDA changed requirements for reporting risks or adverse reactions found during clinical trials, after an inquiry by the Senate Committee on Finance, who oversees the FDA, found that pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline knew of potential cardiac risks of the company’s prescription drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) years before it became public and failed to disclose those risks. The FDA first approved Avandia in 1999. Between then and when heart attack side effects came to public light in 2007, the FDA estimates that Avandia caused approximately 83,000 heart attacks. The new FDA rule requires that pharmaceutical companies or drug sponsors report clinical trial findings that suggest a significant risk to study participants or any suspected adverse reactions that occur at a rate higher than expected, which previously did not require reporting to the FDA, within 15 days of becoming aware of findings.
The FDA also regulates medical devices, everything from tongue depressors to heart valves, including medical implants such as hip replacements, diagnostic devices such as MRI machines and treatment devices such as infusion pumps. New medical devices must go through a premarket approval (PMA) and requires makers of the medical device to provide clinical trial data to prove the medical device is safe and effective. However, many new medical devices never go through this process. If a maker can prove their device is substantially similar to another device already approved for market, that device can get FDA approval through the 510(k) process that requires no clinical trial data support.
This FDA fast track process for medical device approvals is facing scrutiny from a U.S. Senate Special Committee after a study published in the February 2011 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine found that the majority of defective medical devices recalled by the FDA due to serious or fatal device side effects were approved using the 510(k) process. Defective medical devices have affected the lives of millions of people, including such medical devices as defective hip implants, defective defibrillators and defective infusion pumps.
Many serious and potentially fatal injuries from a defective medical device, medication side effects or drug interactions discovered after a medical device or drug has been on the market have prompted increased warnings on the device or drug labeling, restriction of the drug’s use or resulted in a medical device or drug recall. Anyone who suffers serious side effects from defective medical device or prescription medication, or those who lost a loved one to a fatal side effect, may have grounds to file a lawsuit to recover damages such as medical expenses, loss of wages or financial support or the wrongful death of a loved one. Speak with a personal injury lawyer of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP today and find out if you are entitled to compensation for your injury.


