Fourth Bellwether Trial Underway

The short answer is yes, the fourth bellwether trial began on Monday (September 18, 2017). Six plaintiffs injured by the Depuy Pinnacle hip (and four spouses) are bringing their claims against defendants in Dallas, Texas before Judge Kinkeade. You can read about previous Pinnacle bellwether trials and their huge jury awards here and here.

In the present case, plaintiffs are bearing down on the high failure rate of the Pinnacle Ultamet metal-on-metal artificial hips. Plaintiffs contend that Depuy and Johnson & Johnson rushed the medical device to market, failed to undertake adequate premarket studies, did not provide sufficient warnings about the dangers of the hip implants, and defectively manufactured these poorly designed medical devices. The New York Plaintiffs bring claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of express and implied warranties, and other claims. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and punitive damages.

Defendants Depuy and Johnson & Johnson, as you can guess, have countered that the Pinnacle hip is safe and that the failure rates are in line with industry standards. In opening statements, according to reports, Defendants alleged that the Pinnacle is one of the best artificial hips on the market, and that all artificial hips wear down and typically require revision or replacement surgeries. Finally, Defense counsel stated that Depuy relied on reliable scientific evidence at the time, and should not be punished for selling a product doctors and researchers believed was safe.

In considering these defense statements, however, keep in mind that the FDA approved the Depuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal artificial hip for sale by means of the 510(k) process in 2000. Utilizing the streamlined 510(k) procedure, Depuy was not required to undertake clinical trials with the Pinnacle hip. You can read the FDA’s approval letter here. By representing to the FDA that the Depuy Pinnacle hip’s design was “substantially equivalent” to other hip products on the market, Depuy was able to avoid the important safety review required for premarket approval under FDA regulation, including vital clinical trials.

This fourth bellwether trial is expected to last up to two months, so we will not get a jury verdict until November.

Depuy and Johnson & Johnson Tried to Stop Trial

This fourth trial almost did not happen, at least in Texas. It was originally scheduled to begin September 5, but Defendants filed what’s called a writ of mandamus. Let’s stop here for a bit of law school: a writ of mandamus is a petition to a higher court asking for an order requiring a lower court to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. The writ of mandamus is a “drastic” remedy reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” It is granted to a party to a lawsuit when the party establishes that its legal rights will be permanently impaired or stripped away if immediate affirmative action by a higher court is not taken. It is a very high standard to achieve, and in this case the Defendants did not win their petition. Defendants asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the fourth bellwether trial on the grounds that the defendants did not waive their objections to holding the trial outside New York, where original jurisdiction is situated. In multi-district litigation, the MDL is not permitted to try any case where venue is not proper unless the parties waive their objections to the improper venue. MDL Judge Kinkeade ruled that Defendants had waived their objections to trying the case in the MDL court. In reviewing the defendants’ writ of mandamus, two of three judges on the Fifth Circuit found that Defendants had not waived their objections. The Fifth Circuit encouraged but did not require that Judge Kinkeade postpone the fourth bellwether trial. So in that sense, the writ of mandamus was denied.

One word about the decision on the petition for the writ of mandamus: it was no slam dunk. The three judges on the panel each wrote a separate opinion, with one concurring in the result and another dissenting in part. By no means should the decision be read as the last word on the question of the waiver of objections to venue or jurisdiction. In fact, Plaintiffs immediately sought a rehearing on the writ before the full Fifth Circuit. This means that the plaintiffs believe the narrow majority decision was handed down by judges more sympathetic to defendants than to the merits of the writ, and wanted the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the matter. This petition for rehearing was denied, and Judge Kinkeade rescheduled the trial for September 18. Plaintiffs are putting on their case now.

No matter the outcome of the current trial, with the mandamus business it is a certainty that an appeal on the verdict is imminent.

I will keep you posted with trial updates as they happen. And if you have a Pinnacle hip you think may have failed, give me a call.

Now it’s the plaintiffs’ turn. The five victims of the Depuy Pinnacle artificial hip have answered the appeal of Depuy Orthopaedics and Johnson & Johnson in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. And as they did at trial, the plaintiffs have come out fighting.

Recap of Depuy’s Appeal

A few weeks ago I wrote about the appeal brought by Depuy and Johnson & Johnson after a Texas jury awarded $502 million dollars to five plaintiffs. You can read about the Defendants’ appeal here. But to recap, Depuy and J&J argue that they were unfairly prejudiced by the plaintiffs’ team aggressive tactics at trial. They argue that Defendants are entitled to a new trial because the plaintiffs’ team had “a strategy” to “inflame the jury through highly prejudicial evidence and wholly inappropriate argument.”

A focus of Depuy’s appeal is that the companies were deeply prejudiced in the eyes of the jury based on “highly inflammatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial evidence” presented by the plaintiffs. Depuy contends that plaintiffs’ reference to payments made by Depuy to “henchmen of Saddam Hussein” was unfairly prejudicial (and thus violated Rule of Evidence 403). Turns out affiliates of Defendants had made improper payments to the Iraqi government. Judge Kinkeade, who presides over the Depuy Pinnacle litigation, allowed the improper payment evidence because Depuy made “character” an issue in the trial by repeatedly characterizing itself as a wholesome company with small town values.

Plaintiffs’ Appeal Brief

On Friday (March 31, 2017), the plaintiffs’ team filed its legal brief in response to Depuy’s appeal. It is a spirited document, and sets out the long (unhappy) history of the Depuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip and the injuries it has caused. The plaintiffs refute every issue Depuy raises in its appeal. Further, the plaintiffs asks the Fifth Circuit to restore the $360,000,000.00 in punitive damages awarded by the jury. I wrote about that jury verdict here and Judge Kinkeade’s reduction of the punitive damages award here.

Ultamet Metal Liner

The focus in the Depuy Pinnacle litigation has been on the company’s (aggressive) marketing and sale of the Ultamet metal insert liner in the Pinnacle artificial hip system. Plaintiffs have argued that this metal liner has created the conditions for the metal-on-metal grinding that has caused so many injuries. The plaintiffs do not argue that the polyethylene or plastic liners have negligently caused injury. Rather, it is the metal insert liner that has caused the thousands of premature artificial hip failures and the thousands of lawsuits against Depuy and Johnson & Johnson. The plaintiffs’ brief sets out this history of Depuy’s pushing this metal-on-metal hip system onto the market, despite evidence that the metal-on-metal hips caused too many problems.

Reference to Saddam Hussein

The plaintiffs also argue aggressively that their use of the term “henchmen of Saddam Hussein” was not unfairly prejudicial to Depuy. First, despite Depuy’s argument that plaintiffs used the term repeatedly, the plaintiffs point out in their response brief that the phrase was used just once in a nine-week trial. Further, the reference to unlawful payments to Iraq was presented as character evidence against the company, evidence the judge allowed because Depuy characterized itself as a “virtuous” company whose “sole goal” was to”produce products that help people get better.” Plaintiffs’ Brief. As it turns out, corporate affiliates of J&J had been sanctioned for making unlawful payments to the Iraqi government when Saddam Hussein was alive and well and the leader of Iraq. Judge Kinkeade noted at trial that Depuy had opened the door for the jury to hear this character evidence against Depuy when the defense team introduced evidence of Depuy’s wholesome reputation. Finally, the plaintiffs on appeal argue that the one reference to “henchmen” could not have been “unfairly prejudicial” because Judge Kinkeade gave the proper jury instruction that required the jury to consider only admitted evidence and explaining that a lawyer’s comments are not evidence.

Plaintiffs Ask Appeals Court to Restore $360 Million in Punitive Damages

The jury in this case originally awarded the five plaintiffs $360,000,000.00 in punitive damages (over and above actual, compensatory damages). Punitive damages are money damages, separate from compensatory damages, which are awarded by a jury and which are intended to punish or deter a bad-acting defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct. After the trial, Judge Kinkeade reduced the $360,000,000.00 punitive damages award to $9,646,256.00. Judge Kinkeade wrote that he was bound by a Texas statute which puts a “cap” on the amount of punitive damages a jury can award. In Texas, the limit on the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded “may not exceed an amount of two times the amount of economic damages; plus an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or $200,000, whichever is greater.” So the statute benchmarks punitive damages on the amount of other money damages awarded to the injured person.

The plaintiffs now ask the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse this reduction in punitive damages and to find that the Texas statute capping punitive damages is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs make a compelling argument, because the statutory cap potentially harms certain injured plaintiffs more than others. Because the Texas statute calculates punitive damages based the individual plaintiff’s actual damages, wealthy or young plaintiffs would ultimately recover more punitive damages than those plaintiffs who do not earn a lot of money or who received fewer compensatory damages for other reasons, such as old age.

In their brief, plaintiffs argue: “A plaintiff with a large income who is injured or killed by another’s wrongdoing will likely have far more “economic damages” than a plaintiff with a modest income. Further, retirees, persons with disabilities, or spouses not working outside the home will likewise have minimal “economic damages” under Texas law.” Plaintiffs’ Brief. What this means is that in Texas punitive damages will be awarded differently if the injured person is unemployed, retired, or disabled; and that the plaintiff who is young or who earns a lot of money may end up with more punitive damages than the low earning person, even though the jury intended to punish the defendants equally for the companies’ very bad behavior. This does not seem fair. The statute could well be ruled unconstitutional.

The Fifth Circuit will take several months to decide this appeal. I will keep you posted, as always. And if you have a Depuy Pinnacle hip with a metal liner that is giving you problems, give me a call to discuss further.