Judge Catherine Blake, who is overseeing the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip multi-district litigation in Baltimore, Maryland, recently issued an order setting out the bellwether trial schedule for the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) cases.

Just to recap: there are two tracks of cases in the Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip litigation: BHR and THA. BHR refers to cases involving injured people who received Smith & Nephew Birmingham hip components as part of a resurfacing procedure. The BHR resurfacing system is a metal-on-metal (MoM) artificial hip, but in resurfacing procedures the hip “ball” bone is resurfaced with a metal covering and a metal acetabular shell is implanted into the hip socket, thus creating a MoM articulation. Smith & Nephew used cobalt and chromium to construct both of these resurfacing components. As with all metal-on-metal artificial hips, the Smith & Nephew BHR has been shown to wear down and leach metals into the blood and tissue of the patient, a condition called metallosis.

The second track of cases involves total hip arthroplasties (THA) using Smith & Nephew Birmingham components. These total hip replacements are constructed with Smith & Nephew BHR components and non-BHR components, but instead of resurfacing the “ball-bone” with a metal covering the bone is removed and replaced with a metal ball component (a femoral head).

So What is a Bellwether Trial?

A “bellwether” is a thing that shows others what is likely to happen in the future. It is an indicator of trends. In litigation, especially large-scale litigation like MDLs, a bellwether case can be a indicator of how strong or weak a type of case will look to juries. In multi-district litigation, there are simply too many cases to take to a jury verdict. It would take a lifetime to try all the cases in any MDL. For example, if one typical MDL trial lasts three weeks (they often last longer) and there are 1,000 cases in the MDL (the DePuy Pinnacle litigation alone had over 10,000 cases), it would take 57 years to try all those cases. Bellwether trials allow both sides to see (1) how strong is the evidence supporting liability for a defective product, and (2) what value a typical jury might assign to a particular type of injury caused by the product. If juries in bellwether trials consistently find no liability, it is a real signal that the cases may not be viable and certainly may not have much settlement value. On the other hand, if several bellwether trials yield large verdicts, it shows both sides, and especially the defendants, that the remaining cases pose serious financial risk to the manufacturer of the defective product. Bellwether trials provide a window into the challenges the clients face and give realistic expectations for settling cases.

Smith & Nephew Bellwether Trial Schedule

In Judge Blake’s recent order, the first bellwether trial for the BHR (resurfacing procedure) cases is scheduled for November 2, 2020. So a year from now. The second bellwether trial will begin January 11, 2021. The actual cases selected for these bellwether trials will be determined by June 15, 2020. The Order (Case Management Order No. 15) sets out all the key deadlines leading up to these bellwether trials, and I won’t list them all here, but one key date is October 2020, when Judge Blake will hold Daubert hearings to determine the admissibility of the scientific evidence and expert witness testimony. Judge Blake will decide then if the expert testimony is strong enough that it can be presented to a bellwether jury.

Finally, one “THA Track” bellwether trial is scheduled to begin March 1, 2021, but most of that scheduling has been deferred to a later order.

Can a Bellwether Trial Schedule Encourage Settlement?

Sure. Trial is always a motivator to resolve a case. Trials are extremely expensive and time-consuming for both sides. And if one side is aware that the facts don’t look so good for them, the imminent bellwether trial may inspire a renewed vigor to settle all the cases. Currently there is no indication that the Birmingham hip cases will reach a global settlement before the first bellwether trial, but it is certainly possible. I will keep you updated as always. Good luck.

I have written about artificial hip litigation on this site more than any other area of product liability law, and for a very good reason: there is a lot to write about. Metal-on-metal hips have gravely injured tens of thousands of people, and new victims are undergoing revision surgeries each week to remove defective hips. One current active litigation involves Smith & Nephew “Birmingham” artificial hips. MDL 2775 is the multidistrict litigation court handling hundreds of lawsuits filed against medical device maker Smith & Nephew for these (allegedly) defective artificial hips. There are several artificial hip products involved in MDL 2775:

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR). The multidistrict litigation court was first organized to handle these BHR lawsuits. The BHR system is a type of metal-on-metal artificial hip, but in resurfacing procedures the hip “ball” bone is shaped and resurfaced with a smooth metal covering and a metal shell is implanted into the hip socket, thus creating a metal-on-metal connection or “articulation.” As with most metal-on-metal artificial hips, Smith & Nephew uses cobalt and chromium to construct both of these resurfacing components. These metals have been shown to wear away and leach into the blood and tissue of the patient, causing all kinds of symptoms and problems, including metallosis.

BHR Hip Components Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). These hip implants are constructed with Smith & Nephew BHR components and non-BHR components, but instead of resurfacing the “ball-bone” with a metal covering the bone is removed and a metal ball component is implanted. MDL 2775 added these Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) cases to the litigation shortly after the MDL launched.

Smith & Nephew R3 Liners. This hip implant consists of a metal liner placed between the femoral head and cup, which creates a metal-on-metal articulation. The R3 has experienced many of the same problems that other metal-on-metal hip implants have caused, including metallosis, pain, and loosening. Smith & Nephew issued a voluntary recall in June of 2012. At the time of the recall, approximately 4,000 R3 liners had been implanted in patients in the United States.

Judge Catherine Blake–who oversees the MDL–has divided the cases into two tracks: the “BHR Track” and the “THA/R3 Track.” For a person injured by the failure of one of these hip implant systems, you will need to verify the exact components implanted and file the proper case under the BHR Track or the THA/R3 Track. (Of course, your attorney is supposed to do all of this work, and you need an attorney for these kinds of cases, as I discuss here.)

Some Smith & Nephew Cases Dismissed Because They Were Filed Too Late

On November 19, 2018, Judge Blake considered motions to dismiss from Smith & Nephew lawyers, who argued that dozens of cases in the MDL were time-barred. I wrote about statutes of limitations in a prior post, and I’ve referenced it often on this site, but in a nutshell it is one major defense for a company sued by a person injured by a defective product.

Judge Blake denied most of the motions to dismiss in her Order. So that’s the good news. She observed that many of the cases hailed from states with “discovery rules.” The discovery rule clarifies when the clock starts ticking to file a product liability case. It typically means that the clock cannot start ticking against the injured person until the person discovers (or reasonably should have discovered) that he or she was injured by a defective product. As I’ve discussed, determining that moment of “discovery” can be difficult for medical devices.

With regard to Smith & Nephew’s motions to dismiss, Judge Blake dismissed a few cases that were clearly outside the time-limits for bringing a case in that plaintiff’s home state, but kept most of the cases where discovery rules applied or where there was some ambiguity about the passage of time.

As you can imagine, defense attorneys press these statutes of limitation defenses aggressively, so be careful. The takeaway: do not “sleep on your rights.” If you think you have been harmed by a defective product, contact an attorney immediately.

Smith & Nephew Mediation Scheduled for January 30, 2019

Smith & Nephew has not yet made any serious effort to settle these cases, although the company initially expressed some willingness to discuss settlement of the THA/R3 track cases. Judge Blake ordered mediation to be held on January 30, 2019. Smith & Nephew is asking all THA/R3 Track plaintiffs to produce relevant medical records so that the company can properly evaluate each of the THA/R3 cases. If mediation does not lead to a global settlement of these cases, discovery will continue, including depositions to be taken in the coming months.

Trial Dates Scheduled

The BHR Track cases have trial dates set for March 2020. If THA/R3 mediation is not successful at the end of this month, the plaintiffs’ team will ask Judge Blake for a trial date to be scheduled shortly after the trial for the BHR Track cases.

If you were implanted with a Smith & Nephew artificial hip (of any kind) and are suffering problems, give me a call to discuss further: (919) 830-5602.

Note: All information in this post was distilled from publicly available information and news sources.