Multidistrict Litigation and What it Means to You

DePuy Orthopaedics issued a recall of their faulty hip implants due to patients suffering such side effects as metal poisoning, pain, bone fractures, and other complications as a result of the implants. The recall came in August 2010, but not until an estimated 90,000 people received the implants worldwide, with over 30,000 people receiving them in the United States alone.
Hundreds of people affected by these DePuy hip complications have filed suits against the company claiming that the product was under-tested and marketed despite the company’s knowledge of potential danger involved in the implants. Because of the vast number of suits being filed against the company, many have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation, which will help to organize the suits and give more order to the procedures.
However, there is a distinction between multidistrict litigation and a class action lawsuit – in a multidistrict litigation, similar cases from separate districts are consolidated into a proceeding that takes place before any trial in an effort to determine common factors tying the suits together, with one judge presiding over the evidence gathering procedure. In this case, the judge is Judge David A. Katz of Toledo, Ohio.
After the evidence is gathered and the facts related to the lawsuits are determined, each lawsuit is sent back to the court in which it was filed to determine the results of the trial. There is a class action lawsuit being filed against DePuy and its parent company, Johnson & Johnson, which isn’t related to the multidistrict suits being filed against the company. In this case, the case will go to trial at a single court.
If a DePuy settlement is reached with consumers before the trial goes to court, court proceedings will not have to continue and consumers will likely receive some form of damages. This all depends on whether DePuy will freely acknowledge or admit that their hip implant was improperly tested and that they were previously aware of the potential for danger to the customer.