{"id":1589,"date":"2013-03-08T23:40:37","date_gmt":"2013-03-08T23:40:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sandiegopersonalinjuryattorney.pro\/law\/?p=1589"},"modified":"2013-03-08T23:40:37","modified_gmt":"2013-03-08T23:40:37","slug":"kransky-v-depuy-trial-day-one-january-25-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sandiegopersonalinjuryattorney.pro\/law\/kransky-v-depuy-trial-day-one-january-25-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"Kransky v. DePuy Trial \u2013 Day One January 25, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

Co-Counsel Michael Kelly, of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, delivered Plaintiff\u2019s Opening Statement.<\/p>\n

January 25th Morning session:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mr. Kelly gave Plaintiff\u2019s opening statement, walking the jury through DePuy\u2019s original design of the ASR XL, the lack of testing done on the device before placing it on the market, and ultimately the severe harm Plaintiff Loren \u201cBill\u201d Kransky suffered as a result of these actions.<\/p>\n

He discussed how the ASR XL was put on the general European market in 2004, in Europe, Spain and India. And that as early as 2005 DePuy started to hear \u201cnoise\u201d of questions and problems with the device. Mr. Kelly explained that the jury would hear evidence that, rather than deal with the news of these problems, DePuy and Johnson and Johnson blamed these problems on the implanting doctors\u2019 technique, stating \u201cand you will hear as we go forward that every time there is a problem the Johnson & Johnson response is to blame the doctor and claim it\u2019s technique, to never look inward, do we have a problem with our product? The failure in the seating of the cup?\u00a0 Have we had a history of failures over the last year or is this phenomenon related to the wider rollout?\u201d<\/p>\n

Included in Mr. Kelly\u2019s opening statement were references to documents which reflected DePuy\u2019s knowledge of the possible risks and effects of the release of metal ions into the body of those implanted with the ASR.\u00a0 These documents were intended to show that despite such knowledge related to the possible risks of the ASR, DePuy decided not to hire a toxicologist to study and learn more. The jury also heard evidence that Graham Isaac, a scientist working for DePuy wrote in an email to other employees \u201cYesterday we were given some clinical data which compares metal ion levels between the BHR [a similar metal-on-metal orthopaedic hip implant which the ASR was in direct competition with] and ASR.\u00a0 It shows that under certain conditions ASR is susceptible to extreme metal ion levels, but in the hands of the same surgeon, the BHR doesn\u2019t have that problem.\u00a0 The concern, it has the potential to seriously affect our business.\u201d\u00a0 Mr. Kelly followed up that email with the comment, \u201cThere is no mention in this email anywhere, which you\u2019ll have in evidence, of a concern about the potential of hurting people.\u201d Parenthetical explanation added.<\/em><\/p>\n

Mr. Kelly went on to explain that DePuy for a short time considered redesigning the ASR XL to eliminate some of its most dangerous features, but that the program was given the code Project\u00a0 Alpha so as not to alert doctors and hospitals of these safety changes.\u00a0 \u00a0Upon examining the costs of redesign, and considering current sales, the redesign program was later cancelled because, as Mr. Kelly put it, \u201cthe business case for the project could no longer be justified.\u00a0 There was no mention, no analysis of the number of patients who might go on to still get the device and suffer the elevated ions and the excessive metal.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Kelly also discussed whether Bill Kransky had an infection before having his hip removed.\u00a0 DePuy\u2019s primary and essentially only defense is that an infection was the reason for Mr. Kransky\u2019s revision (a revision is the replacement of a hip implant), that an infection is not caused by a hip implant, and so DePuy is not liable for these related damages.\u00a0 Mr. Kelly introduced evidence from Mr. Kransky\u2019s revision doctor who testified that he did not see any signs of infection in Mr. Kransky\u2019s hip.<\/p>\n

The opening statement ended with the request for a substantial award for what Mr. Kransky endured, as well as punitive damages.<\/p>\n

Alexander Calfo for the Defendants DePuy and Johnson & Johnson followed up with his opening statement to the jury.\u00a0 In sum, he stated that the cobalt and chromium in the ASR did not poison Mr.Kransky, that the ASR was thoroughly tested and researched before it was implanted in people, and that Mr. Kransky\u2019s illnesses and medical condition were not caused by the ASR.<\/p>\n

January 25th Afternoon Session:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Former Depuy employee and head of the failure mode and effect analyses performed on the ASR, Magnus Flett\u2019s video deposition excerpts were played. \u00a0Flett agreed with the need to make sure any new product put on the market should be safe stating: \u201cYou need to understand as best you can the risks that you see, the failure modes that you see and any mitigation you can do to risk those.\u201d<\/p>\n

Flett also admitted that in these failure mode analyses, the effect of the implant loosening to the point where a revision was necessary was something to be avoided.<\/p>\n

When pushed on the lack of clinical trials performed on the ASR itself, Flett stated that they looked at the clinical history of \u201cequivalent\u201d products:<\/p>\n