DePuy Pinnacle Trial News

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 817-2527 or fill out our online form on the homepage. 

2016 Trial Updates

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update: Your Attorney

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 22

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 21

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 20

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 19: July 29

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 18: July 21

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 17: July 7

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 16: July 5

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 15: June 24

How are cases selected for DePuy Pinnacle Bellwether trials?

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 14

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 13

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 12

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 11

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Verdict and Your Case

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial $500M Verdict

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 10

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 9

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 8

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 7

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 6

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 5

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 4

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 3

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 2

DePuy Pinnacle 2016 Trial Update 1


 

2014-2015 Trial Updates

JURY CLEARS J&J IN DEPUY PINNACLE TRIAL- OCTOBER 23, 2014 *

Hi. Bill Kershaw and I are the partners responsible for the DePuy Pinnacle metal-on-metal hip cases.

We are providing an update on the DePuy Pinnacle trial that was pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This was the very first case to be tried in front of a jury in the country; there about 6,000 cases still pending against DePuy by people who were injured by their Pinnacle hips. We learned today the jury awarded a verdict in favor of the defendants, J&J’s DePuy. This means the plaintiffs lost the case and will receive nothing. Many people are wondering how this happened.

Following the trial, I think the plaintiffs put on a very good case; this was a defective hip, it was not adequately tested, and put on the market too soon. DePuy was really motivated more by profit than the safety of their device and patients. In order to win, plaintiffs would have to prove the bad hip caused damages. Unfortunately, this case had “causation issues” and possibly resulted in the case falling apart.
*Oct 23 (Reuters) – Johnson & Johnson was found not liable by a Texas jury on Thursday in the first case to go to trial over whether Pinnacle hip implants made by the company’s DePuy Orthopaedics unit were defective.

The Dallas federal jury ruled unanimously against the plaintiff Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, who said the two metal-on-metal Pinnacle hips she received were faulty.

DePuy had said the implants had been improperly positioned, and were not to blame for her injuries. Jurors needed about two days to deliberate, following a seven-week trial. The trial served as the first test case for more than 6,600 similar lawsuits. (Reporting by Jessica Dye in New York and Lisa Maria Garza in Dallas; Editing by Chris Reese)

For more information, please visit: Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy wins first trial over Pinnacle hips


DEPUY PINNACLE TRIAL NEARING THE END: CLOSING ARGUMENTS BEGIN OCTOBER 21, 2014

Closing arguments in the DePuy Pinnacle Trial started Tuesday, October 21, 2014. Closing arguments are essentially where each side, plaintiffs and defendants, summarize the evidence put forth at trial and argue their case to the jury.

In this case, Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s attorney, will likely argue that DePuy was at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries and the jury should award her damages accordingly.

On the other hand, the defendants will likely argue that the plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by the Pinnacle implant but rather caused by negligence from her doctor, or other factors, and should deny recovery.

 DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 7 10/13-10/16

We are providing an update on the ongoing DePuy Pinnacle trial now pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This is the very first case to be tried in front of a jury in the country. There are about 6,000 cases now pending against DePuy by people who were injured by their Pinnacle hips. We are now in the seventh week of trial and closing arguments are next week.

The defendants are still putting on their case. The defense has put on evidence for about 2 weeks now. This week we heard from a series of expert witnesses they put on the stand. All these experts have opinions that are negative to the plaintiff. They are blaming the surgeon who put in the hips and the “extreme” angles at which the cups were put into the hips. They are stating the surgeon and “extreme” angles caused the plaintiff’s problems. This has been the basis for DePuy’s defense in this case.

We also heard more video tape testimony. This is where someone was deposed earlier in the case as part of the discovery process, and the video tape of the person’s deposition is played to the jury. We heard from Mr. Ekdahl this week, the ex-CEO of DePuy.

We are on the very last week of trial. Next week is closing arguments and jury deliberations. The length of time it takes for a jury to make a decision is unclear but it could be anywhere from 1 day to 2 weeks. It really depends on how difficult a time the jury has making a decision on the case. We will provide in depth discussion on closing arguments, or the lawyer summaries of the 7 weeks of trial.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form on the homepage. 

 DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 6 10/6-10/9


We are providing an update on the ongoing DePuy Pinnacle trial now pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This is the very first case to be tried in front of a jury in the country. There are about 6,000 cases now pending against DePuy by people who were injured by their Pinnacle hips. We are now in the sixth week of the trial.

This week in the trial we continued with the defense case and the witnesses DePuy is putting on the stand. They introduced a series of expert witnesses to talk about all of the things DePuy did to test and get the Pinnacle hip approved by the FDA. The purpose of the testimony is to give jurors the impression that DePuy is a responsible company, and that they performed all the appropriate tests the FDA required, and really didn’t do anything wrong. There is a problem with that argument. The way the FDA works is unique. A lot of people believe when the FDA approves a product, they thoroughly investigated the product and decided that it’s a good product, it’s safe, and the warnings are adequate. The truth is something different. With medical devices, such as hips, manufacturers are not required to test the device. They can get approval from the FDA to sell the device with almost no testing at all if they show the device is substantially similar to another design that is already on the market. The issue with whether FDA approval means the device is safer, or the company did the right thing, really doesn’t mesh. So, when the FDA approves a device, they are not saying they tested it. The FDA doesn’t really test devices. The FDA relies on manufacturers to test the devices, and the manufacturers tell the FDA they tested the device. That’s when the FDA approves the device.

DePuy is trying to create the impression that because this was FDA approved it was a safe device and their testing was appropriate. In reality, this isn’t true.

The next phase of the trial will be the plaintiff’s rebuttal witnesses, present witnesses to rebut the arguments the defendants have made.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form on the homepage. 

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 5 9/29-10/2


We are providing an update on the ongoing DePuy Pinnacle trial now pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This is the first of thousands of cases tried in front of a jury. We are now in the fifth week of the trial.

The defendants presented testimony from a series of expert witnesses. The witnesses testified about what they believed was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The primary defense is blaming the plaintiff’s injuries on how her hips were implanted. DePuy states the reason these hips had high metal wear was a result of implantation of the hips at an extreme angle.

The plaintiffs made a point early in the case that the appropriate angles for implantation were never provided to doctors.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form on the homepage.

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 4 9/22-9/28

We are providing an update on the ongoing DePuy Pinnacle trial now pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This is the first of thousands of cases tried in front of a jury. We are now in the fourth week of the trial.

This week we heard from Dr. Henrik Malchau, an orthopedic surgeon and professor at Harvard. He performed the plaintiff’s bilateral revision surgeries. She had a revision surgery on each side. The jury watched a video of one of the revisions. Dr. Malchau described the surgery from the stand; he noted finding pervasive metal stained tissue and grossly abnormal fluid.

The plaintiff also testified this week. During her testimony, she explained her injuries. A series of experts, a life care planning expert and neurologist, also discussed her injuries. The plaintiff’s husband also took the stand to discuss her experiences.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form.

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 3 9/15-9/21

We are providing an update on the ongoing DePuy Pinnacle trial now pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This is the first of thousands of cases tried in front of a jury. We are now in the third week of the trial.

We heard from a Pam Plouhar, DePuy VP of clinical research. She is responsible for testing the Pinnacle hip and ensuring its safety. Testimony revealed the manufacturers were not testing the hips correctly. They weren’t testing the hips in humans since it was not required by the FDA. They did not do long term studies testing the effects of elevated cobalt and chromium. In fact, most people weren’t aware how cobalt and chromium affected a hip joint when metal on metal hips were released on the market. This was acknowledged by Ms. Plouhar.

The other testimony came from a defense expert, Dr. John Fisher, a tribologist (a tribologist studies the science of rubbing surfaces). He has strong ties with J&J and DePuy.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form.

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 2 9/8-9/14

We are providing an update on the ongoing DePuy Pinnacle trial now pending in federal court in Dallas, Texas. This is the first of thousands of cases tried in front of a jury. We are now in the second week of the trial.

This week the plaintiffs took testimony from marketing individuals at DePuy. These individuals were responsible for marketing the Pinnacle hip. The purpose of this testimony was emphasizing the theme of the case: the Pinnacle hips were falsely advertised. Surgeons and the public were told the hips were essentially indestructible.  There was advertising in medical journals, and other places, stating the Pinnacle hip had a 99.9% survival rate. In essence, they were telling surgeons that only 0.1% fail. This percentage was wrong.  The reality is that at 5 years the failure rate is around 15%.

There was also testimony from Dr. Thomas Schmalzried, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Schmalzried was one of the inventors of the Pinnacle hip. He traveled the country, and the world, affirming the wonders of metal on metal hips. Unfortunately, we believe Dr. Schmalzried knew the contrary. He knew there were lots of problems. There were problems with his patients.  There were problems reported in Europe and other places. A lot of the testimony dealt with what Dr. Schmalzried knew and what he was telling the medical community. A substantial part of the testimony focused on his earnings. Dr. Schmalzried was paid millions to work on and promote the Pinnacle hip.

The trial appears to be going well for the plaintiffs. We are still in the plaintiff’s phase of the case. They are focusing on the fact DePuy provided false and misleading information regarding these hips but was not revealing this to the public.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form.

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 1 9/2-9/7

Hi, I’m Stuart Talley with Kershaw, Cook & Talley LLP. Bill Kershaw and I are the partners responsible for providing a status update on the DePuy Pinnacle litigation.We are providing an update on the recent DePuy Pinnacle trial that started in federal court in Dallas, Texas on September 2, 2014. The trial involves Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli’s case. This is the first case of more than 6,000 cases on file involving DePuy Pinnacle tried in front of a jury.

Today at trial, there was continued testimony from Andrew Ekdahl, ex-CEO of DePuy. The plaintiff’s attorney is unraveling the defense’s argument stating the risks of metal on metal hips were well known to the medical community. During opening statements, the defense attorney claimed everyone knew of the issues associated with metal on metal hips and they were well studied for 75 years. The plaintiff’s attorney presented Mr. Ekdahl with multiple internal DePuy documents indicating DePuy engineers and scientists repeatedly acknowledging the risks of metal ions, particularly cobalt and chromium, and the biological impact they have on the body is not well known, well studied, and more research is necessary. There are a myriad of documents demonstrating DePuy did not know the impact of metal ions before they launched the Pinnacle. There are other documents revealing people proposed performing studies and undergoing research regarding these issues, months and years the DePuy Pinnacle is released on the market. Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s attorney, did a powerful job of presenting this testimony and evidence to the jury.

Mr. Lanier also discussed advertising for the DePuy Pinnacle. The Pinnacle was highly advertised. It was advertised directly to consumers, doctors, and even magazines. Mr. Lanier addressed numerous claims in the advertising as bogus. Mr. Ekdahl, the defense, did not concede they were bogus. But it was obvious from testimony, witnesses, and documents the claims were bogus. The claim that 99.9% of the hips survive for 5 years after implantation was considered the most bogus; statistics presented in the trial show this is false. There was also a document presented to the jury from the early 2000s. The document confirmed scientists, who studied problems with metal on metal hips, recommended to DePuy it was vital surgeons and patients were warned of the risks associated with metal debris, and the unknown nature of how it impacts the body. Mr. Lanier presented ads, brochures, and other marketing material provided to doctors and patients. He pointed out that none of the materials contained the “vital warning” from DePuy’s internal memos.

The other picture painted during testimony illustrated DePuy’s position in the industry during the time the Pinnacle was launched. DePuy did not have much market share when the Pinnacle was launched. Their market share position was low ranking and they struggled.  The documents show the metal on metal version of the Pinnacle was DePuy’s ticket; their foothold into the industry. At the time, their competition did not have metal on metal hips. Over time, this greatly increased their market share, and revenue, since they sold over a billion dollars’ worth of hips per year. The documents also showed the metal on metal hips comprised 50% of their revenue during this time period. DePuy had the big incentive to rush this product on the market with no concern for testing or anything which would hurt their sales.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form on the homepage.

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 1 9/2-9/7

Hi, I’m Stuart Talley with Kershaw, Cook & Talley. Bill Kershaw and I are the partners responsible for providing a status update on the DePuy Pinnacle litigation case.

We are providing an update on the recent DePuy Pinnacle trial that started in federal court in Dallas, Texas on September 2, 2014. The trial involves Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli’s case. This is the first case of more than 6,000 cases on file involving DePuy Pinnacle tried in front of a jury.

We are now on the third or fourth day of the trial. Today, we heard once more from Andrew Ekdahl, ex-CEO of DePuy and defendant in the case. He was responsible for the hip unit when the Pinnacle was first launched. This is his second day on the stand.

If you followed our previous video updates, an argument the defendants are making is the reason the plaintiff’s hips failed is a result of the surgeon’s error and not the DePuy Pinnacle. The plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Lanier, was cross-examining Mr. Ekdahl. Mr. Lanier asked him about the warnings and literature regarding the DePuy Pinnacle hip. Mr. Ekdahl admitted the literature lacks sufficient material concerning the dangers of implanting the hips at the wrong angle. Mr. Lanier demonstrated there were discrepancies in the literature. In the literature, they told doctors the hip should be implanted between 10 and 20 degrees, and then at another point 10 to 30 degrees. Mr. Ekdahl could not explain this discrepancy and basically said it was a typo. This typo was distributed to approximately 7,000 surgeons. This was powerful testimony.

Another aspect of trial focused on a series of emails that came out between 2008 and 2010. During this time period, DePuy is receiving reports the hips are failing. DePuy was placing the surgeon at fault instead of looking at or trying to see if their product was defective in some way. DePuy was saying the surgeons were lazy and implanting the hips at the wrong angle. There were emails between various individuals stating DePuy was losing credibility in the medical community about the angles. The medical community did not agree with DePuy’s position the hips were failing secondary to the angles.

DePuy then decided to create an “education campaign”. They wanted to educate surgeons on the importance of implanting these cups at the right angle. This was in stark contrast to DePuy’s opening statement where they told everyone the appropriate angles are well known. The emails proved DePuy was contemplating starting an educational program about the angles which DePuy previously considered obvious knowledge. The emails also showed the individuals in charge of the education campaign asked engineers and surgeons for advice on the ideal angle for their own hip. This substantiates DePuy, or their engineers, didn’t even know the appropriate angle for these hips years after it was released. This undercut DePuy’s defense that surgeons know the appropriate angle and the surgeon was at fault.

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form on the homepage. 

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 1 9/2-9/7

Hi, I’m Stuart Talley with Kershaw, Cook & Talley LLP. Bill Kershaw and I are the partners responsible for providing a status update on the DePuy Pinnacle litigation. 

We are providing an update on the recent DePuy Pinnacle trial that started in federal court in Dallas, Texas on September 2, 2014. The trial involves Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli’s case. This is the first case of more than 6,000 cases on file involving DePuy Pinnacle tried in front of a jury. 

Today was an interesting day in court. The plaintiff called Andrew Ekdahl, ex-CEO of DePuy and defendant in the case, to the stand. He is the very first witness the plaintiff called. Mr. Ekdahl has absolutely no medical or engineering background. He advanced through the company as part of the sales division. He was always a salesman. The plaintiff’s attorney was adamant in establishing DePuy really had a culture of doing whatever it takes to sell. The people running the show were salesman, and were in the marketing arm of the company. 

During the plaintiff’s attorney opening statement, he indicated people in sales and marketing were involved in decisions on the design of the hip and in testing the hip. This is essentially unheard of in the medical device industry. Generally, there is a separation between the people responsible for safety and the people responsible for selling the device. During Mr. Ekdahl’s testimony, it was clear those lines were blurred at DePuy. 

Testimony established Mr. Ekdahl is a marketing man with limited experience in medicine or engineering. He demonstrated after all the problems with this hip, and other DePuy hips, nothing befell Mr. Ekdahl. In fact, he was promoted multiple times. The plaintiff’s attorney got the defendant to admit that instructions for the device contained little information about the angle at which the hip should be implanted. Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s attorney, argued DePuy provided essentially no training for surgeons regarding implanting the cup at the appropriate angle. 

We will provide further updates as the case progresses. If you have a DePuy Pinnacle hip, please feel free to call us at (888) 522-2372 or fill out our online form on the homepage. 

DePuy Pinnacle Trial Update: Week 1 9/2-9/7

Hi, I’m Stuart Talley with Kershaw, Cook & Talley LLP. Bill Kershaw and I are the partners responsible for providing a status update on the DePuy Pinnacle litigation. 

We are providing an update on the recent DePuy Pinnacle trial that started in federal court in Dallas, Texas on September 2, 2014. The trial involves Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli’s case. This is the first case of more than 6,000 cases on file involving DePuy Pinnacle tried in front of a jury. 

The outcome of Herlihy-Paoli’s case is an important precedent for the other cases. Generally, in mass tort litigation, the first few cases going to trial are “bellwether” or test cases. A bellwether trial is a selection of representative sample of cases tried in front of a jury. Bellwether cases are normally demonstrative of matters which may arise in every injured party’s case. The idea of bellwethers is providing an indication of the outcome of future trials, and gaining enough information to determine whether or not cases should be settled and the approximate monetary compensation of those settlements. 

Ms. Herlihy-Paoli suffered from a condition known as congenital hip dysplasia. Hip dysplasia is a deformity of the hip joints. It is a common condition requiring hip replacements. She was in her forties when implanted bilaterally (in both hips) with DePuy Pinnacles. She had pain and heard of the issues concerning metal on metal hips. She had blood tests which revealed her cobalt levels were over 400 parts per billion. Normal cobalt levels are less than one part per billion. 

In respect to Herlihy-Paoli, her case is unique. The manufacturer provides minimal guidance on the appropriate angle of the cup. It is important the surgeon implants the cup at an angle that will ensure the hip is stable so that it doesn’t fracture or dislocate in the future. Due to Ms. Paoli’s hip dysplasia, her hips were implanted at an unusual angle, steeper than most people, during her index (initial) surgery. Subsequently, she required bilateral revision of her DePuy Pinnacle hip implants. In her first revision, the surgeon replaced the metal liner with a plastic liner but left the hip at an extreme angle. In the second revision, the surgeon replaced the cup entirely and changed the angle of the cup. After both revisions, both hips had plastic liners but one hip was at an extreme angle and the other at a more neutral angle. Ms. Paoli suddenly had a catastrophic failure of the hip remaining at an extreme angle. The plastic liner in that hip shattered and she required another surgery. She has undergone five hip surgeries since developing hip problems. 

On September 3rd, we had opening arguments. Opening arguments consist of the plaintiff’s attorney, and defense attorney, telling their story to the jury and providing a summary of the evidence. Mark Lanier, the plaintiff’s attorney, is one of the best trial attorneys in the country. Mr. Lanier did an unbelievable job in his opening statement. He focused the case on the marketing for the DePuy Pinnacle. He discussed how surgeons were informed that the DePuy Pinnacle was indestructible. In DePuy’s advertising, they told surgeons 99.9% of the hips were still implanted. Essentially, they were telling surgeons the failure rate of the hip was 0.1%. According to Mr. Lanier, the failure rates were closer to 15% not 0.1%.  Mr. Lanier talked about numerous documents and witnesses that he will present. He is establishing DePuy knew the Pinnacle had a very high failure rate and knew it was not as good as the metal-on-plastic hips but hid this from the medical community; they did everything they could to prevent this information from getting out. This is the heart of the plaintiff’s case; the idea surgeons were misled regarding this hip and information about its dangers were kept hidden from the public. 

The defense attorney told the jury to ignore all the marketing issues and failure rates, and focus on the fact these hips were implanted at an extreme angle. From the defense standpoint, no matter what kind of liner Herlihy-Paoli had in the cup, she was going to have problems anyway. Their supporting evidence is the fact that the hip with the plastic liner, the one which failed recently, was at an extreme angle. In the defendant’s mind, the proof is regardless of the liner type, she was going to have these problems and surgeries anyway. The defense is blaming the surgeon. He stated all surgeons know about the “safe zone” or range of angles to implant these hips without any problems. He argued the surgeon who implanted Ms. Paoli with her hip violated the safe zone. 

Later, the plaintiffs will call their first witness, Andrew Ekdahl, ex-CEO of DePuy and defendant in the case, to the stand. He was heavily involved with the development and marketing of the hips. As the trial progresses, visit our website for further updates. 

Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy Pinnacle Trial Underway

Tuesday, September 2, 2014 marked the first bellwether trial regarding the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) DePuy Pinnacle metal on metal hip implant. Until now, the device is not recalled but gained notoriety over several reports of side effects from design flaws and metal poisoning.

The DePuy Pinnacle, similar to its recalled counterpart, DePuy ASR, places patients at significant risk for elevated levels of cobalt and chromium in their blood. Additional problems with the DePuy Pinnacle may include infection secondary to metallosis, pseudotumors, severe hip pain, and other life threatening complications. An internal memo via DePuy highlights concern from Dr. Thomas Schmalzried who foreshadowed the release of metal debris into the bloodstream.

Kathleen Herlihy-Paoli, a Montana resident, the first of the bellwether trials, claims the DePuy Pinnacle hips leeched cobalt and chromium into her blood stream precipitating an infection. Consequently, the pain from infection required removal of the devices. Mark Lanier, Herlihy-Paoli’s attorney, suggests J&J knew of the metallosis poisoning from the hips as early as 2001.

Voir Dire (jury selection) occurred on September 2. The trial will proceed with a nine member jury composed of five women and four men, including an attorney and a PhD pharmacist. Subsequently, on Wednesday, September 3, opening statements occupied the morning. In the afternoon, Andrew Ekdahl, ex-DePuy President, took the stand. He was head of marketing during key periods in question. Currently, he is chairman of DePuy Synthes unit’s global orthopedic business. Ekdahl implies this is a promotion from his previous position. His testimony monopolized all of Wednesday afternoon as well as Thursday, September 4. Trial is not held on Fridays.

On Monday, September 8th the parties are scheduled to question Polly Cary, Product Director of Marketing for DePuy, and Dr. John Abramson, DePuy’s Healthcare Policy/Information Integrity expert.

* The case is Herlihy-Paoli v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., 12- cv-3590, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas).

 



Real Time Web Analytics