Briefcases -- DePuy Orthopaedics MDL 2244 Pinnacle Hip Implant -- DePuy Orthopaedics MDL 2244 Orders (J&J Pinnacle Hip Implant)
Documents: DePuy Orthopaedics MDL 2244 Orders (J&J Pinnacle Hip Implant)

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SUBSIDIARY DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS HIT WITH $1 BILLION VERDICT IN PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT TRIAL

     A Dallas,TX jury returned a $1.05 billion verdict against DePuy Orthopaedics and it's parent Johnson & Johnson on December 1, 2016 in Andrews vs. DePuy, following a two month trial related to DePuy's Pinnacle hip implants and severe personal injuries caused by the defective design and a failure to warn consumers of known dangers, which Depuy and J&J deny. DePuy and J&J face more than 8,000 lawsuits over the Pinnacle implants and stated that they would immediately appeal the verdict, which was based on $32 million in compensatory damages and over $1 billion in punitive damages.  This is the second major verdict loss recently against DePuy and the Pinnacle device, in July 2016 a $500 million verdict award was reduced to $151 million based on Texas state law limits on punitive damages. The Andrews verdict is the third in a series of test cases known as bellwether trials where DePuy was found not liable in the first trial in 2014, the second bellwether trial resulted in the reduced damage award of $151 million in July 2016. The majority of the DePuy implant cases have been consolidated in the US District Court of Texas under DePuy Pinnacle MDL No. 2244. DePuy is reported to have declined a settlement offer from the plaintoff for $1.8 million just before the start of the trial.  Johnson & Johnson severly criticized the trial over rulings they felt were unfairly in favor of the plaintiffs and in their appeal J&J has requested the court postpone additional trials over the Pinnacle implants until the appeal decision is made. Of note is the decision by DePuy and J&J to stop marketing the Pinnacle implants in 2013 after the FDA strengthened the rules regarding artificial hip implants. In 2010 J&J paid $2.5 billion to settle more than 7,000 similar lawsuits over it's ASR hip implants wich were recalled due to high failure rates. Taken in conjunction with the recent substantial verdicts against J&J in the TALC baby powder litigation ($100 million) and the Risperdal pharmaceutical litigation MDL ($80 million), J&J has some tough legal decison making ahead regarding its business strategies, as well as possibly settling the many thousands of pending cases against its products in court venues across the country, that could very conservativerly rise to the $10 billion plus figure and possibly into the $20 billion area, based on the numerous recent high verdict against the company. 

     

    

 

 

DePuy MDL 2244 Plaintiffs Fact Sheet Template in PDF.pdf
Andrews Initial Complaint filed 10-27-15 No 3-15-cv-3484 in DEPUY MDL 2244.pdf
Andrews vs. DePuy (Pinnacle Implant) $1.1 Billion Trial Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Dated 12-1-16 (Court Charge)
Andrews v Depuy (Pinnacle Hip Implant) Pacer Docket Re $1.1 billion Dollar Verdict vs Johnson & Johnson
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 12-1-16 Jury Notes Re DEPUY MDL 2244.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 12-1-16 Response to J-J Trial Objections Re DEPUY MDL 2244.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 266 J-J Memorandum in Support Re Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 269 J-J Memorandum in Support Re Andrews Recall Failure Claims 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 270 J-J Memorandum in Support Re Andrews Design Defect Preemption 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 271 J-J Memorandum in Support Re Andrews Punitive Claims 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 272 J-J Offer of Proof Re Exhibits Excluded at Trial 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 277 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT’S JURY CHARGE 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 258 Plaintiffs Request for Post Verdict Relief Under CA Unfair Competition Law 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 262 Plaintiffs Opposition to J-J Motion for Mistrial Re Cancer Claims 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 274 J-J Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment as Matter of Law 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 275 Plaintiffs Response in Opposition to J-J Motion for Judment 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 DKT 278 J-J Reply in Support of Motion for Mistrial Re Cancer References 11-29-16.pdf
Andrews 3-15-cv-3484 Dkt 279 PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MOTION FOR JMNT 11-30-16.pdf