Cooper & Elliott Creates Focused Intake Process to Facilitate Claimants Eligible for Zimmer Durom Cup Settlement Program

Columbus, Ohio – Ohio personal injury attorneys Cooper & Elliott are pleased to announce the formation of a focused intake process to facilitate claimants eligible for the Zimmer Durom Cup settlement program. This program is designed to make it easier for possible claimants to discuss eligibility for the settlement program created by joint replacement manufacturer, Zimmer.

About the Zimmer Durom Cup Settlement Program

In the early to mid-2000’s, multiple joint replacement and medical device manufacturers (including but not limited to Zimmer) produced metal-on-metal hip replacement implants.  According to court records (1), there have been a significant number of complaints regarding various defects and premature failure of the device.

Zimmer released the Durom Cup hip replacement implant in 2006.  Recipients of the Zimmer Durom Cup have reported a variety of painful health complications related to the product failure—many of which have resulted in implant removal or revision surgery.  A recall of the Zimmer Durom Cup issued in 2008.

Loosening of the device due to boney growth failure, bone loss (necrosis) and metallosis (metal poisoning) are among the problems patients have reported experiencing.

Zimmer became the subject of a substantial number of claims regarding the Durom Cup. For pretrial management purposes, these cases were consolidated into a multi-district litigation.  If a claimant filed a case in federal court in any of the fifty U.S. states, those cases were moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under the case number 2:09-CV-04414.

On February 11, 2016 the plaintiff’s lead counsel and Zimmer’s defense attorneys announced the negotiation of a settlement program which will allow for more expedient processing for claimants.  While the creation of this settlement program by Zimmer is not an admission of liability for product defects, it is an agreement to streamline the negotiation process for patients with claims.

Prior to the establishment of the settlement program, claimants faced a long road to recovery.  It could take years for Zimmer to address a claim, and some claimants had to file a case and wait for it to move through the court system.  The settlement program streamlines this process for patients who have suffered from Zimmer Durom Cup failures.

Claimants Must Register by April 29th 2016

The attorneys at Cooper & Elliott have created a focused intake procedure to facilitate application for those who may be eligible to participate in the Zimmer Durom Cup settlement program.  The registration deadline for this program is April 29th 2016.

Certain patient cases may contain particular factors or circumstances which could entitle them to a larger sum than that established by the Zimmer settlement agreement.  Please contact a Cooper & Elliott attorney at http://zimmersettlements.com, zimmer@cooperelliot.com or 614.481.6000 to discuss specifics determining eligibility.

Case Numbers and Courts of Record: 

  • 2:09-CV-04414, U.S. District Court for the district of New Jersey

The outcome of any client’s case will depend on the particular legal and factual circumstances of the case.

Stonehenge Land Company’s Case Against Board of Education/School District Settles out of Court

Columbus, Ohio – Business litigation law firm Cooper & Elliott is pleased to announce that the case between Stonehenge Land Company and a Board of Education (the full name has been withheld from this post for privacy) has reached a settlement agreement for $980,000.

According to court documents, the settlement was reached after the trial court indicated that it would very likely allow the case to proceed to trial.

Unfortunately, the poor decision-making of the School Board has cost the school district and its students a considerable amount of money. While Stonehenge had the right and reasons to sue for a much larger amount, they elected to settle for a smaller sum, sufficient to cover some of the losses caused by the School Board’s decisions without unduly harming the students of the district.

In 2007, the Superintendent of the School District asked Stonehenge Land Company to help secure a large parcel of property across from their High School.  The School Board had long desired the property to expand the High School classroom space but was not experienced in acquiring or developing real estate.  Stonehenge secured the property at a substantially reduced price and agreed to assign the Purchase Contract to the district in exchange for a promise to construct buildings on the property and for long term leases on two plot lots and a ground lease on the first floor of one of the buildings to be constructed on the property.

After Stonehenge put in months of work and assigned the purchase contract, the School Board changed course, publicly bid the construction contract and issued leases to third parties completely cutting Stonehenge out of the deal. Stonehenge was left with no recourse, except to sue the School Board, its Superintendent and its Board Members for fraud and breach of contract.

After choosing to violate its contract with Stonehenge, the district attempted to hide behind laws that protect governmental entities and schools from liability. Cooper & Elliott argued on behalf of Stonehenge that the School Board was engaged in a commercial activity and the typical shield applying to governmental entities and Schools did not apply. Cooper & Elliott believed strongly that the Court was poised to permit these claims to proceed to a jury trial.

Cooper & Elliott will not allow citizens to be bullied by any governmental entity that tries to then hide behind laws that shield the government against lawsuits.  In cases of injustice like this one, our law firm will fight until justice is done and the injured party is put back into the position it would have been in but for the governmental misconduct.  It is our hope that this case will cause this district and other governmental entities to think twice before engaging in commercial activity and then attempting to profit at the expense of others.

The outcome of any client’s case will depend on the particular legal and factual circumstances of the case.