The team, headed by Richard Starkie, has been strengthened by the recruitment of two more solicitors, Lucy Macklin-Smith and Lindsay Perryman, who join Aftar Waris and Jamie Paddock.

The ASR hip was introduced in July 2003 and used extensively in a few areas of the UK, particularly York, North Tees, Surrey, Rotherham, Merseyside and Cardiff.  By 2007, a number of surgeons raised concerns that they were experiencing a higher than expected failure rate with the ASR.  DePuy’s response was that this was a problem with surgical technique, rather than a problem with the product.  However, as concerns grew, DePuy withdrew the product form the Australian market in December 2009 and from the rest of the world in August 2010.

Since then, hospitals have been recalling patients for tests, including blood tests; ultrasound and MRI scans; and aspirations of fluid from the hip.  Hundreds of people have been found to be suffering from excessive wear of the components, which can lead to damage to the soft tissues around the joint and even to the bone.  Revision surgery is then required, with a lengthy recovery period.  Patients frequently fail to make a full recovery and many require further surgery after revision.

Although, at the time of the product recall in August 2010, DePuy put the 5 year failure rate at 12-13%, some surgeons now estimate the 6 year failure rate as being as high as 49%.  If that is correct, it is likely that several thousand people in the UK alone will require further surgery.

Over the last 18 months, Pryers have worked with some of the world’s leading biomechanical engineers, biotribologists, metallurgists, metrologists, surgeons, toxicologists, epidemiologists, histopathologists and microbiologists.

We have been one of the leading law firms in the investigation of these claims and in the discussions with DePuy.

We have carried out extensive work the following: -

• the precise nature of the design defect;
• the testing procedures and how they failed;
• the manufacturer’s delay in recalling the product;
• establishing causation in individual cases and excluding other potential causes of joint failure;
• determining prognosis after an ASR failure;
• establishing causation of cobalt and chromium toxicity;
• and the long-term health risks posed by exposure to these metals.

We have also been instrumental in establishing and co-ordinating a patient support group for the North of England, called Altogether ASR, which has had several meetings and will shortly be launching a website.  The group’s next meeting will be in March 2012.  Please contact Pryers for details.

If you or a relative has suffered the premature failure of a metal-on-metal hip replacement or resurfacing, particularly the DePuy ASR, please contact Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or by email at hips@pryers.co.uk.

The team, headed by Richard Starkie, has been strengthened by the recruitment of two more solicitors, Lucy Macklin-Smith and Lindsay Perryman.

The ASR hip was introduced in July 2003 and used extensively in a few areas of the UK, particularly York, North Tees, Surrey, Rotherham, Merseyside and Cardiff. By 2007, a number of surgeons raised concerns that they were experiencing a higher than expected failure rate with the ASR. DePuy’s response was that this was a problem with surgical technique, rather than a problem with the product. However, as concerns grew, DePuy withdrew the product form the Australian market in December 2009 and from the rest of the world in August 2010.

Since then, hospitals have been recalling patients for tests, including blood tests; ultrasound and MRI scans; and aspirations of fluid from the hip. Hundreds of people have been found to be suffering from excessive wear of the components, which can lead to damage to the soft tissues around the joint and even to the bone. Revision surgery is then required, with a lengthy recovery period. Patients frequently fail to make a full recovery and many require further surgery after revision.

Although, at the time of the product recall in August 2010, DePuy put the 5 year failure rate at 12-13%, some surgeons now estimate the 6 year failure rate as being as high as 49%. If that is correct, it is likely that several thousand people in the UK alone will require further surgery.

If you or a relative has suffered the premature failure of a metal-on-metal hip replacement or resurfacing, particularly the DePuy ASR, please contact Pryers Solicitors on 0800 316 0166 or by email at hips@pryers.co.uk.

Unknown to Richard, he had at this point developed a DVT which went undiagnosed for nine days until he collapsed and was rushed to his local hospital. As a result of the hospital’s failure to diagnose the pulmonary embolism (PE), he had to have a filter inserted for fourteen months and suffered with ongoing shortness of breath.

In September 2008, Richard approached Pryers Solicitors and investigations were commenced. Then in October 2009, Laura Turner, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence, sent a letter to the Defendant’s setting out the allegations of negligence. In the Letter of Response, the Defendant admitted a breach of duty for failing to diagnose the DVT. However, the Defendant denied that there was any significant injury caused by this failure as Richard had a contra indication to anticoagulation.

Laura Turner undertook research into this area and discovered that some people with contra indication to anticoagulation can be preventively treated for a PE developing. She also found medical evidence to support the argument that at the very least all patients should be admitted and monitored carefully.

In 2011 these further allegations were put to the Defendant followed by an offer to settle the case for £5,000 plus costs, which was accepted.

However, over time the mole continued to grow, bleed and change in appearance. Simon re-attended his GP in November 2009 by which time the mole was nearly twice the size it previously was. In addition, it was also bleeding and irregular.

A referral was then made to a specialist at Simon’s local Hospital and a diagnosis of a malignant melanoma was made. Simon ultimately underwent excision of the melanoma but the cancer had proportionately spread to his brain, lungs and chest wall.

In February 2010, Simon contacted David Sears, a solicitior specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations into the case were commenced and an expert opinion from a GP was obtained. The expert evidence was extremely supportive of the case on the basis that the Defendant had failed to make an urgent referral despite Simon presenting with classic signs of skin cancer.

Further expert evidence ws obtained from a Consultant Dermatologist who confirmed that had the cancer been detected sooner, then Simon would have had a greater life expectancy.

In July 2011, the Defendant’s insurers made an offer to settle of £45,000 plus costs. David Sears then entered into negotiations with the Defendant’s insurers and reached a settlement of £65,000 plus costs, which Simon was extremely happy to accept in full and final settlement.

In September 2009 Maria contacted David Sears, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations were undertaken and expert evidence was obtained from a Consultant Gynecological Surgeon and a Consultant Neurologist. Both were in agreement that although the damage that was caused to the urethra was noted as a potential complication on the Consent Form, Maria had a normal anatomy and the Surgeon would have had a good surgical field of vision during the operation.

The Defendant commenced investigations shortly prior to the Defence being due and an early settlement offer of £10,000 was made. Maria happily accepted the offer given that she did not have any ongoing problems as a result of the negligence.

In July 2007 Harry underwent surgery without any DVT phylaxis. Unfortunately, five days later he was subsequently readmitted to his local Hospital complaining of chest and calf pain. He was subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia and discharged home only to return to hospital two weeks later after having been diagnosed with an extensive DVT.

Harry approached David Sears, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations were undertaken and a letter setting out the allegations of negligence following supportive expert evidence was submitted to the Defendant. The Defendant then submitted a Letter of Response admitting breach of duty in respect of the surgery and failure to provide DVT phylaxis.

Harry had pre-existing venous insufficiency and limited function therefore the injury was limited to a six month period following the surgery. In an attempt to reach early settlement David Sears proposed an out of Court settlement in the sum of £17,000, which the Defendant rejected and made a counteroffer of £15,000. It was ultimately agreed that the matter would settle for £16,000 plus costs which Harry gladly accepted.

Following this diagnosis Michael underwent a hemicolectomy in November 2008 to ease his symptoms. Unfortunately, he did not recover well post-operatively and it was not until February 2009 that he underwent exploratory surgery. Following which it was subsequently discovered that Michael had a pelvic abcess, fistulas and adhesions.

In October 2009, Michael contacted Laura Turner, a solicitor specialising in clinical negligence matters at Pryers Solicitors.

Investigations into the case were commenced and an expert report from a Consultant Gastroenterologist was obtained. The expert’s report was not wholly supportive in that he was of the view that all of the management up to the operation in November 2008 was thought to be reasonable. The expert did, however criticise the hospital’s delay in performing appropriate investigations to confirm why Michael was not making any improvement.

A letter outlining the allegations of the hospital’s failings was sent to the Defendant and the Defendant responded admitting liability. This admission however was for a reduced period of time alongside an offer to settle of £1,000 plus costs. A counter offer of £5,000 plus costs was put forward to the Defendant which was rejected. The Defendant then offered £2,500 plus costs in full and final settlement, which Michael was happy to accept.

Pryers are proud to be one of Simon’s sponsors  on this admirable challenge and wish him all the very best in this rally.

Martin House Hospice cares for Children and Young People with progressive life limiting illnesses, and provide support to their families. They are based in a purpose built hospice in Boston Spa, Wetherby and care for children and young people from throughout the Yorkshire region.

If you would like to sponsor Simon, please go to his web page at www.justgiving.com/simon-morris2

The AES was designed and manufactured by a French company called Transysteme SA, but imported to the UK and marketed under the Biomet name. The joint consists of two metal components, made of a cobalt/chromium alloy, with a polyethylene floating bearing sandwiched between them.

In 2004, the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust received funding from Biomet to become a “centre of excellence” in the use of the AES ankle and many patients in the Yorkshire area were fitted with the joint.

Initial results were thought to be encouraging, but by 2009, reports were emerging that the joint was associated with a very high rate of osteolysis. This occurs when the body detects tiny particles of foreign material and reacts against them, also causing damage to healthy bone. The bone becomes soft and gradually disintegrates.

Some studies have reported osteolysis occurring in more than 50% of patients with this particular product. In some cases, the osteolysis can be seen on x-ray but causes the patient no symptoms. In other cases, it can lead to failure of the joint and destruction of the bones around the ankle. In the most extreme cases, it has required amputation of the lower leg.

The AES joint was withdrawn from the market in the UK, but was not subjected to any formal action by the medical product authorities. However, it continued to be sold in France, under the Transysteme name, until being formally recalled by the authorities in January 2011.

Pryers are now working with some of the world’s leading experts in ankle surgery to determine whether the AES is defective and whether the problems encountered could and should have been identified before the product came onto the market.

If you have suffered problems with a Biomet AES ankle replacement, please contact Richard Starkie on 01904 556600 or by email at richard.starkie@pryers-solicitors.co.uk.

Congratulations to all who took part in this brilliant event, see you all next year!

Pictured from left to right are: Amy Sewell, Lucy Macklin Smith, Emily Whisker, Louise Howard, Alex Goodrick, Marie Brasnett and Steph Turner.