<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
     xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
     xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
    <channel>
        <title><![CDATA[R3 - Hodges Law, PLLC]]></title>
        <atom:link href="https://www.clayhodgeslaw.com/blog/tags/r3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <link>https://www.clayhodgeslaw.com/blog/tags/r3/</link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hodges Law's Website]]></description>
        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 21:39:04 GMT</lastBuildDate>
        
        <language>en-us</language>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[UPDATE: Smith & Nephew Birmingham Artificial Hip Lawsuits Advance]]></title>
                <link>https://www.clayhodgeslaw.com/blog/update-smith-nephew-birmingham-artificial-hip-lawsuits-advance/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.clayhodgeslaw.com/blog/update-smith-nephew-birmingham-artificial-hip-lawsuits-advance/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Clay Hodges]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:59:16 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Artificial Hip]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Multidistrict Litigation]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Smith & Nephew]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Artificial Hip]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[BHR]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Birmingham]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[chromium]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[cobalt]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[MDL 2775]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Metallosis]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[R3]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Smith & Nephew]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[THA]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>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.&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[
<div class="wp-block-image alignleft">
<figure class="is-resized"><a href="/static/2017/03/iStock-587512462.jpg"><img decoding="async" alt="Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Litigation" src="/static/2017/03/iStock-587512462-300x200.jpg" style="width:300px;height:200px" /></a></figure>
</div>

<p>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 <em><strong>Smith & Nephew</strong></em> for these (allegedly) defective artificial hips. There are several artificial hip products involved in MDL 2775:</p>


<p><em><strong>Birmingham Hip Resurfacing System (BHR)</strong></em>. 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.</p>


<p><em><strong>BHR Hip Components Used in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA)</strong></em>. 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.</p>


<p><em><strong>Smith & Nephew R3 Liners. </strong></em>This hip implant consists of a <em><strong>metal liner</strong></em> 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.</p>


<p>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 <a href="/handling-your-product-liability-case-without-a-lawyer-good-idea/">I discuss here.</a>)</p>


<p><em><strong>Some Smith & Nephew Cases Dismissed Because They Were Filed Too Late</strong></em>
</p>

<div class="wp-block-image alignright">
<figure class="is-resized"><a href="/static/2016/06/iStock_77982933_LARGE.jpg"><img decoding="async" alt="The Statute of Limitations Can End Your Case" src="/static/2016/06/iStock_77982933_LARGE-300x214.jpg" style="width:300px;height:214px" /></a></figure>
</div>

<p>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. <a href="//">I wrote about statutes of limitations in a prior post</a>, 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.</p>


<p>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.</p>


<p>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.</p>


<p>As you can imagine, defense attorneys press these statutes of limitation defenses aggressively, so be careful. <em><strong>The takeaway</strong></em>: do not “sleep on your rights.” If you think you have been harmed by a defective product, <a href="/contact-us/">contact an attorney</a> immediately.</p>


<p><em><strong>Smith & Nephew Mediation Scheduled for January 30, 2019</strong></em></p>


<p>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.</p>


<p><em><strong>Trial Dates Scheduled</strong></em></p>


<p>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.</p>


<p>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.</p>


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


]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
            <item>
                <title><![CDATA[Smith & Nephew Artificial Hip Problems: What’s Going On?]]></title>
                <link>https://www.clayhodgeslaw.com/blog/smith-nephew-hip-implant-problems-whats-going-on/</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.clayhodgeslaw.com/blog/smith-nephew-hip-implant-problems-whats-going-on/</guid>
                <dc:creator><![CDATA[Clay Hodges]]></dc:creator>
                <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 16:46:41 GMT</pubDate>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Artificial Hip]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Smith & Nephew]]></category>
                
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Artificial Hip]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[BHR]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Metal-on-metal]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[R3]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[recalls]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[REDAPT]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[SMF]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Smith & Nephew]]></category>
                
                    <category><![CDATA[Tandem Bipolar]]></category>
                
                
                
                <description><![CDATA[<p>I recently blogged about artificial hip failures. Fortunately, these hip failures are not common when you look at the total number of patients receiving hip implants every year. However, when there is a failure, it can be extremely unpleasant, to put it lightly. And it’s not just one medical device manufacturer with implants that are&hellip;</p>
]]></description>
                <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wp-block-image alignright">
<figure class="is-resized"><a href="/static/2016/01/iStock_000022783055_XXXLarge.jpg"><img decoding="async" src="/static/2016/01/iStock_000022783055_XXXLarge-200x300.jpg" alt="Metal-on-metal artificial hip " style="width:200px;height:300px"/></a></figure>
</div>


<p>I recently blogged about <a href="/blog/signs-your-artificial-hip-may-be-failing/">artificial hip failures</a>. Fortunately, these hip failures are not common when you look at the total number of patients receiving hip implants every year. However, when there is a failure, it can be extremely unpleasant, to put it lightly.</p>



<p>And it’s not just one medical device manufacturer with implants that are causing problems. Stryker, DePuy, Zimmer, and Wright are just some of the companies who have had issues with their artificial hip implants. If you’re curious, you can read more about some of them in my other <a href="/blog/failed-artificial-hips-cases-still-active-2016/">blog post</a>.</p>



<p>One such company that’s been in the news lately is <em><strong>Smith & Nephew</strong></em>. Over the course of the past few years, Smith & Nephew has instituted a string of recalls and is now at the beginning of a potentially expensive legal fight, with even more lawsuits expected.  So what exactly is going on with Smith & Nephew’s artificial hip implants?</p>



<p><em><strong>Smith & Nephew Recalls</strong></em></p>



<p>Smith & Nephew issued many recalls regarding its hip implant medical devices, with a select few being particularly noteworthy:
</p>



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li><u>R3 Acetabular System</u>: This hip implant consists of a femoral head and cup, with <em><strong>a metal liner</strong> </em>between the two components. The R3 system is a metal-on-metal hip implant that has experienced many of the same problems that other metal-on-metal hip implants have faced, including <a href="/blog/definitions/">metallosis</a>, pain, infection and hip implant loosening. Many hip implants can suffer these problems, but the R3 System failed at a much higher rate, a whopping 6.3% versus 2.89% for other hip implants. In response to these problems, Smith & Nephew issued a voluntary recall in June of 2012. At the time of the recall, roughly 4,000 R3 Systems had been implanted in US patients.</li>



<li><u>Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Femoral System</u>: The BHR System is similar to the R3 System in that it has a metal femoral head and cup which creates a metal-on-metal hip implant. The BHR System was special in that it was designed to allow for the option of “resurfacing” of the hip joint. With resurfacing, the bone is resurfaced with metal, instead of being completely replaced. However, due to the metal-on-metal nature of the BHR System, patients began suffering from the same problems as R3 System patients. In June of 2015, Smith & Nephew withdrew the BHR System from the US market.</li>



<li><u>Tandem Bipolar Hip System</u>: On August 29, 2016, Smith & Nephew recalled this medical device because “some bipolar shells were manufactured with an out of specification retainer groove.” This has resulted in hip implants literally falling apart after being implanted in the patient.</li>



<li><u>Modular SMF Hip Stem and Modular REDAPT Revision Femoral System</u>: On November 15, 2016, Smith & Nephew issued two recalls for its SMF and REDAPT Hip Systems. The basis for the recalls is due to “a higher than anticipated complaint and adverse event trend.” Essentially, many of the problems with these two hip implant systems have involved the release of metal ions into the body, resulting in metallosis.</li>
</ol>



<p>
<em><strong>Smith & Nephew Litigation</strong></em>
</p>


<div class="wp-block-image alignleft">
<figure class="is-resized"><a href="/static/2016/06/courtroom-898931_1280.jpg"><img decoding="async" src="/static/2016/06/courtroom-898931_1280-300x226.jpg" alt="Smith & Nephew Artificial Hip Lawsuits" style="width:300px;height:226px"/></a></figure>
</div>


<p>Currently, there are several dozen active federal lawsuits concerning the R3 and BHR Systems. These thirty-one cases are spread out over twenty-two federal districts and in the beginning stages of litigation. Since the facts surrounding each case are similar, several plaintiffs have asked the court to consolidate all the cases into one multi-district litigation, or <a href="/blog/definitions/">MDL</a>.</p>



<p>The hope is to litigate these cases more efficiently, although Smith & Nephew has opposed this consolidation on the basis that the R3 and BHR Systems are two different products that rely on two different regulatory laws. A hearing is scheduled for <em><strong>March 30, 2017</strong></em> to decide whether these lawsuits should obtain MDL status.</p>



<p>Currently, only the R3 and BHR Systems have a significant number of lawsuits pending. This shouldn’t be surprising since those devices were recalled or withdrawn from market a few years ago while the Tandem Bipolar, Modular SMF and Modular REDAPT systems were only recalled in the past few months. However, Smith & Nephew can expect to be in court concerning these recently recalled hip implant systems.</p>



<p><em><strong>What Should I Do in the Meantime?</strong></em></p>



<p>If you had any of the above products implanted, see your orthopedic surgeon and discuss the possibility that your implant may begin to fail, or may have already started to fail. Your doctor can perform tests to determine if your artificial hip is failing. And if you have legal questions, don’t hesitate to give me a call or send me a message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>