1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Myrta Lopez, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

ZIMMER, INC.; ZIMMER HOLDINGS, 

INC.; AND ZIMMER ORTHOPAEDIC 

SURGICAL PRODUCTS, INC.

 Defendants.

Court File No. _______________

COMPLAINT -

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Myrta Lopez, by and through his undersigned Counsel, and for his 

Complaint against the Defendants, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is an action for damages suffered by Myrta Lopez, as a direct and proximate result 

of Defendants’ wrongful conduct in connection with the development, design, 

manufacture, distribution, and selling of Defendants’ knee replacement product, the 

Zimmer NexGen CR and the Zimmer NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral knee 

replacement system (hereinafter “Zimmer NexGen Knee”).

2. Defendants knew or should have known that the Zimmer NexGen Knee can loosen in 

patients, such as Plaintiff Myrta Lopez, causing personal injury, significant pain, and loss 

of movement, and that this injury can only be remedied through subsequent revision 

surgery and/or hip replacement. Further, Defendants misled health care professionals and 

the public into believing that the Zimmer NexGen Knee was safe and effective for use in 

knee replacement surgery; engaged in deceptive, misleading and unconscionable 

promotional or sales methods to convince health care professionals to utilize the Zimmer 

NexGen Knee, even though Defendants knew or should have known that the Zimmer 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 1
2

NexGen Knee was unreasonably unsafe; and failed to warn health care professionals and 

the public about the safety risks of the Zimmer NexGen Knee.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Myrta Lopez is a citizen of the state of Nevada, and reside in Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

4. Defendant Zimmer, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware, and has its principal place of business located in Warsaw, Indiana. 

5. Defendant Zimmer Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws 

of Delaware, and has its principal place of business located in Warsaw, Indiana. 

6. Defendant Wilson/Phillips Holdings, Inc. a/k/a Zimmer Wilson Phillips is a corporation 

organized and existing under the laws of Texas, and has its principal place of business in 

Richardson, Texas. 

7. Defendant Zimmer Orthopaedic Surgical Products, Inc. is a corporation organized and 

existing under the laws of Ohio, and has its principal place of business in Dover, Ohio. 

8. At all times material hereto, Defendants developed, designed, tested, manufactured, 

distributed, marketed, and sold the Zimmer NexGen Knee. Defendants’ products,

including the Zimmer NexGen Knee, are sold throughout the world, including within the 

state of Nevada.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because Plaintiff and 

Defendants are citizens of different States and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 2
3

10. Venue in this action properly lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a), 

as a substantial number of the events, actions or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s 

claims occurred in this district. At all times material hereto, Defendants conducted 

substantial business in this district. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

KNEE REPLACEMENT BACKGROUND

11. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA), also called total knee replacement, is a common medical 

procedure performed. The surgery is designed to help relieve pain and improve joint 

function in people with severe knee degeneration due to arthritis or trauma. 

12. Upon information and belief, the TKA procedure is done by separating the muscles and 

ligaments around the knee to expose the inside of the joint. The ends of the thigh bone 

(femur) and the shin bone (tibia) are removed as is often the underside of the kneecap 

(patella). 

13. Upon information and belief, about 85 to 90 percent of total knee replacements are 

successful up to ten years. 

14. Mechanical loosening means that for some reason (other than infection) the attachment 

between the artificial knee and the bone has become loose. 

15. Upon information and belief, loosening of an artificial knee can be diagnosed using Xray. X-ray pictures of a loose knee joint there are one or more radiolucent lines around 

the contours of the artificial knee joint. 

16. A loose artificial knee is a problem because it causes pain and wearing away of the bone. 

A painful loose knee can restrict the patient’s daily activities severely. A loose artificial 

knee also involves severe psychical burden for the patient. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 3
4

17. Once the pain becomes unbearable or the individual loses function of the knee, another 

operation will probably be required to revise the knee replacement. A loose, painful

artificial knee can usually, but not always, be replaced. 

18. The purpose of knee revision surgery is to remove a failed knee implant and replace it 

with a new one. 

19. Upon information and belief, in a revision operation of a total knee failed by loosening 

the biggest problem is usually to reconstruct the severe bone loss caused by bone 

destruction around the failed total knee prosthesis, and restore the stability in the revised 

total knee. 

20. Upon information and belief, the results of a revision operation are not as good as the 

first, and the risks of complications are higher. The range of motion in the knee after the

revision surgery may be smaller and the walking capacity may be also diminished. The 

rate of loosening is higher after revision surgery than in primary knee replacement 

surgery. 

ZIMMER NEXGEN KNEE FACTS

21. Zimmer was founded in 1927, and purports to be a worldwide leader in the design and 

manufacture of orthopaedic reconstructive, spinal and trauma devices, dental implants, 

and related orthopaedic surgical products.

22. The Zimmer NexGen Knee uses this alloy component to attach the bottom of the thigh 

bone to the replacement knee without traditional cement to glue it in place.

23. The Zimmer NexGen Knee uses a “high-flex” porous femoral component made of a 

porous fiber metal and a cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy. The cobalt 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 4
5

chromiummolybdenum alloy on the surface that allows bone to grow into the mesh and 

relies on bone growing into the surface of the implant for fixation.

24. The Zimmer NexGen Knee is not cemented in place during implantation, rather the 

patient’s bone is supposed to fuse to the implant. The cementless implant relies on the 

bone naturally fusing with the implant. These implants have a surface topography that is 

conducive to attracting new bone growth. 

25. Defendants generally, manufactured, labeled, packaged, distributed, supplied, marketed, 

advertised, and/or otherwise engaged in all activities that are part and parcel of the sale 

and distribution of a pharmaceutical, and by said activities, caused the Zimmer NexGen 

Knee to be placed into the stream of commerce throughout the United States. 

26. Defendants made, participated in and/or contributed to filings with the FDA in 

conjunction with the approval process for the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

27. Upon information and belief, Defendants was in control of the design, assembly, 

manufacture, marketing, distribution, packaging, labeling, processing, supplying, 

promotion, sales, and the issuance of product warnings and related information with 

respect to the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

28. Defendants were at all times material hereto subject to the laws of the United States of 

America, including provisions relating to the FDA, and the rules and regulations thereof, 

in conjunction with the approval process, labeling, and other after-market activities that 

pertain to the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

29. The Zimmer NexGen Knee has been widely advertised, marketed and represented by the 

Defendants as a safe and effective treatment. 

ZIMMER NEXGEN KNEE PROBLEMS

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 5
6

30. In 2010, Dr. Richard A. Berger, a Zimmer consultant, and her colleague Dr. Craig J. 

Della Valle, presented a paper at a national meeting of the American Association of 

Orthopedic Surgeons showing that approximately 9% percent of their patients who had 

the Zimmer NexGen Knee implanted required revision surgery and 36% showed signs of 

the knee implant loosening within one year of implant. 

31. From the time that Defendants first began selling the Zimmer NexGen Knee in the United 

States, the product labeling and product information for the Zimmer NexGen Knee failed 

to contain adequate information, instructions, and warnings concerning implantation of

the product and the risks that the Zimmer NexGen Knee can loosen in patients. 

32. Despite its knowledge of the serious injuries associated with use of the Zimmer NexGen 

Knee, Defendants engaged in a marketing and advertising program which as a whole, by 

affirmative and material misrepresentations and omissions, falsely and deceptively sought 

to create the image and impression that the use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee was safe. 

33. Upon information and belief, Defendants downplayed and understated the health hazards

and risks associated with the use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee and through promotional 

literature as well as sales visits to orthopaedic surgeons, deceived doctors and potential 

users of the Zimmer NexGen Knee by relaying positive information, while concealing the 

nature and extent of known adverse and serious health effects. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

34. On August 6, 2007, Plaintiff’s physician implanted a Zimmer NexGen Knee CR-Flex.

35. The treating physician for Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, were exposed to the 

aforementioned advertising and marketing campaign directly by the Defendants.

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 6
7

36. Plaintiff Myrta Lopez and Plaintiff’s physician, either through direct promotional contact 

with Sales Representatives of Defendants, through word-of-mouth from other health care 

providers influenced by Defendants, and/or through promotional materials from 

Defendants, received the information the Defendants intended that they receive, to-wit: 

that the Zimmer NexGen Knees were safe and effective for use in TKA procedures.

37. On or about April 6, 2010, Plaintiff had a second surgery to revise/replace her previously 

implanted Zimmer NexGen Knee. Plaintiff’s entire artificial knee system was replaced at 

which time it was discovered that the tibia was loosening.

38. As a direct and proximate result of the use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee, Plaintiff 

suffered, and continues to suffer, serious bodily injury and harm. 

39. As a direct and proximate result of the use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee, Plaintiff 

incurred, and continues to incur, medical expenses to treat her injuries and condition. 

40. At no time material to her use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee was Plaintiff or her 

physicians told, warned, or given information about the higher risks of loosening in the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

Count I – Strict Liability

41. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as if fully 

set forth herein and further alleges as follows: 

42. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants were engaged in the development, testing, 

manufacturing, marketing and sales of Zimmer NexGen Knee. Defendants designed, 

manufactured, marketed, and sold Zimmer NexGen Knee to medical professionals and 

their patients, knowing it would be implanted for knee replacements. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7
8

43. Zimmer NexGen Knee as designed, manufactured, marketed and sold by Defendants 

reached Plaintiff without substantial change in its condition and was used by Plaintiff in a 

reasonably foreseeable and intended manner. 

44. Zimmer NexGen Knee was “defective” and “unreasonably dangerous” when it entered 

the stream of commerce and was received by Plaintiff, because it was dangerous to an

extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer. At no time 

did Plaintiff have reason to believe that Zimmer NexGen Knee was in a condition not 

suitable for their proper and intended use among patients. 

45. The Zimmer NexGen Knee was used in the manner for which it was intended, that is, for 

artificial knee replacement. This use resulted in injury to Plaintiff. 

46. Plaintiff was not able to discover, nor could he have discovered through the exercise of 

reasonable care, the defective nature of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. Further, in no way

could Plaintiff have known that Defendants had designed, developed, and manufacture 

the Zimmer NexGen Knee in such a way as to increase the risk of harm or injury to the 

recipients of it. 

47. The Zimmer NexGen Knee is defective in design because of its propensity to loosen and 

cause patients unnecessary pain and repeat surgical procedures. 

48. The Zimmer NexGen Knee is unreasonably dangerous because it was sold to Plaintiff 

without adequate warnings regarding, inter alia, the propensity of Zimmer NexGen Knee 

to loosen and cause serious pain and necessitate additional surgery; the post-marketing 

experience of higher rates of loosening and revision surgery with the Zimmer NexGen 

Knee; and the probability of suffering loosening and revision surgery. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 8
9

49. Defendants failed to develop and make available alternative products that were designed 

in a safe or safer manner, even though such products were feasible and marketable at the 

time Defendants sold Zimmer NexGen Knee to Plaintiff. 

50. Defendants had knowledge and information confirming the defective and dangerous 

nature of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. Despite this knowledge and information, 

Defendants failed to adequately and sufficiently warn Plaintiff and her physicians that 

Zimmer NexGen Knee causes serious injuries including, loosening and revision surgery. 

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including Zimmer 

NexGen Knee’s defective and dangerous design and inadequate warnings, Plaintiff has 

sustained and will continue to sustain severe and debilitating injuries, economic loss, and 

other damages including, but not limited to, cost of medical care, rehabilitation, lost 

income, permanent instability and loss of balance, immobility, and pain and suffering, for 

which he is entitled to compensatory and equitable damages and declaratory relief in an 

amount to be proven at trial. 

52. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other 

relief as the Court deems proper. 

Count II – Products Liability Failure To Warn

53. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein. 

54. Defendants researched, developed, designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, labeled, 

distributed, marketed, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of 

commerce the Zimmer NexGen Knee and, in the course of same, directly advertised or 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 9
10

marketed the product to the FDA, health care professionals, and consumers, or persons 

responsible for consumers, and therefore had a duty to warn of the risks associated with 

the use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

55. Defendants failed to adequately warn health care professionals and the public, including 

Plaintiff Myrta Lopez and her prescribing physician, of the true risks of the Zimmer 

NexGen Knee, including that the Zimmer NexGen Knee could loosen, causing severe 

pain and injury, and requiring further treatment, including revision surgery and/or knee 

replacement. 

56. Defendants failed to timely and reasonably warn of material facts regarding the safety 

and efficacy of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. Had they done so, proper warnings would 

have been heeded and no health care professional, including Plaintiff’s physician, would 

have prescribed the Zimmer NexGen Knee, or no consumer, including Plaintiff, would 

have purchased and/or used the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

57. Defendants failed to timely and reasonably provide adequate instructions and training 

concerning safe and effective use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. Had they done so,

healthcare professionals, including Plaintiff’s physician, could have safely and effectively 

implanted the Zimmer NexGen Knee, without causing serious pain and injury to patients, 

including Plaintiff. 

58. The Zimmer NexGen Knee, which was researched, developed, designed, tested, 

manufactured, inspected, labeled, distributed, marketed, promoted, sold and otherwise 

released into the stream of commerce by Defendants, was defective due to inadequate 

post-marketing warnings and/or instruction because, after Defendants knew or should 

have known that there was reasonable evidence of an association between the Zimmer 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 10
11

NexGen Knee and knee replacement loosening causing serious injury and pain. 

Defendants failed to provide adequate warnings to health care professionals and the 

consuming public, including Plaintiff, and continued to aggressively promote the Zimmer 

NexGen Knee. 

Count III – Product Liability Design Defect

59. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein. 

60. Defendants is the researcher, developer, manufacturer, distributor, marketer, promoter, 

supplier and seller of the Zimmer NexGen Knee, which is defective an unreasonably 

dangerous to consumers.

61. The Zimmer NexGen Knee is defective in its design or formulation in that it is not 

reasonably fit, suitable or safe for its intended purpose and/or its foreseeable risks exceed 

the benefits associated with its design and formulation. The Zimmer NexGen Knee is 

defective in design or formulation in that it lacks efficacy and/or it poses a greater 

likelihood of injury than other knee replacement devices and similar knee replacement 

devices on the market and is more dangerous than ordinary consumers can reasonably 

foresee. 

62. If the design defect were known at the time of manufacture, a reasonable person would 

have concluded that the utility of the Zimmer NexGen Knee did not outweigh the risk of 

marketing a product designed in that manner. 

63. The defective condition of the Zimmer NexGen Knee rendered it unreasonably dangerous 

and/or not reasonably safe, and the Zimmer NexGen Knee was in this defective condition 

at the time it left the hands of the Defendants. The Zimmer NexGen Knee was expected 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 11
12

to and did reach consumers, including Plaintiff Myrta Lopez, without substantial change 

in the condition in which it was designed, manufactured, labeled, sold, distributed, 

marketed, promoted, supplied and otherwise released into the stream of commerce. 

64. Plaintiff and her physician were unaware of the significant hazards and defects in the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

65. The Zimmer NexGen Knee was unreasonably dangerous and/or not reasonably safe in 

that it was more dangerous than would be reasonably contemplated by the ordinary user. 

During the period that Plaintiff used the Zimmer NexGen Knee, it was being utilized in a 

manner that was intended by Defendants. At the time Plaintiff received and used the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee, it was represented to be safe and free from latent defects.

66. Defendants is strictly liable to Plaintiff for designing, manufacturing, and placing into the 

stream of commerce a product which was unreasonably dangerous for its reasonably

foreseeable uses at the time it left the control of Defendants because of the design defects.

67. Defendants knew or should have known of the danger associated with the use of the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee, as well as the defective nature of the Zimmer NexGen Knee, but 

has continued to design, manufacture, sell, distribute, market, promote and/or supply the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the public 

health and safety, in conscious disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by the Zimmer 

NexGen Knee. 

68. As a direct and proximate cause of the design defect and Defendants’ misconduct as set 

forth herein, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer serious and permanent noneconomic and economic injuries. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 12
13

69. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other 

relief as the Court deems proper. 

Count IV – Negligence

70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every paragraph of this Complaint as if fully 

set forth herein and further alleges as follows.

71. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, 

formulation, testing, manufacture, marketing, sale, and distribution of Zimmer NexGen 

Knee, including a duty to ensure that Zimmer NexGen Knee did not pose a significantly 

increased risk of bodily injury to its users. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable 

care in the advertising and sale of Zimmer NexGen Knee, including a duty to warn 

Plaintiff and other consumers, of the dangers associated with the consumption of Zimmer 

NexGen Knee that were known or should have been known to Defendants at the time of 

the sale of Zimmer NexGen Knee to the Plaintiff. 

72. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, testing, manufacture, 

marketing, sale and distribution of Zimmer NexGen Knee because Defendants knew or 

should have known that Zimmer NexGen Knee had a propensity to cause serious injury, 

including loosening and revision surgery.

73. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the labeling of Zimmer NexGen Knee and 

failed to issue adequate pre-marketing or post-marketing warnings to prescribing doctors 

and the general public regarding the risk of serious injury, including, loosening and

revision surgery.

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 13
14

74. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff could foreseeably suffer injury as a 

result of Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary care as described above.

75. Defendants breached their duty of reasonable care to Plaintiff by failing to exercise due 

care under the circumstances. 

76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, including their failure 

to exercise ordinary care in the design, formulation, testing, manufacture, sale, and 

distribution of Zimmer NexGen Knee, Plaintiff was implanted with Zimmer NexGen 

Knee and suffered severe and debilitating injuries, economic loss, and other damages, 

including but not limited to, cost of medical care, rehabilitation, lost income, permanent 

instability and loss of balance, immobility, and pain and suffering, for which they are 

entitled to compensatory and equitable damages and declaratory relief in an amount to be 

proven at trial. 

77. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against Defendants for compensatory and

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other 

relief as the Court deems proper. 

Count V - Breach Of Express Warranty

78. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein. Defendants advertised, labeled, marketed and promoted its product, 

the Zimmer NexGen Knee, representing the quality to health care professionals, the FDA, 

Plaintiff Myrta Lopez, and the public in such a way as to induce its purchase or use, 

thereby making an express warranty that the Zimmer NexGen Knee would conform to 

the representations. More specifically, Defendants represented that the Zimmer NexGen 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 14
15

Knee was safe and effective, that it was safe and effective for use by individuals such as 

Plaintiff, and/or that it was safe and effective to treat Plaintiff’s condition. 

79. The representations, as set forth above, contained or constituted affirmations of fact or 

promises made by the seller to the buyer which related to the goods and became part of 

the basis of the bargain creating an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the 

affirmations of fact or promises. 

80. The Zimmer NexGen Knee did not conform to the representations made by Defendants in 

that the Zimmer NexGen Knee was not safe and effective, was not safe and effective for 

use by individuals such as Plaintiff, and/or was not safe and effective to treat in

individuals, such as Plaintiff.

81. At all relevant times, Plaintiff used the Zimmer NexGen Knee for the purpose and in the 

manner intended by Defendants. 

82. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s physician, by the use of reasonable care, would not have 

discovered the breached warranty and realized its danger. 

83. The breach of the warranty was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s injuries. 

84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, including their failure 

to exercise ordinary care in the design, formulation, testing, manufacture, sale, and 

distribution of Zimmer NexGen Knee, Plaintiff was implanted with Zimmer NexGen 

Knee and suffered severe and debilitating injuries, economic loss, and other damages, 

including but not limited to, cost of medical care, rehabilitation, lost income, permanent 

instability and loss of balance, immobility, and pain and suffering, for which they are 

entitled to compensatory and equitable damages and declaratory relief in an amount to be 

proven at trial. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 15
16

85. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory and 

punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such other 

relief as the Court deems proper. 

Count VI - Breach Of Implied Warranty

86. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein. 

87. The Zimmer NexGen Knee was not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which 

such goods are used and did not meet the expectations for the performance of the product 

when used in the customary, usual and reasonably foreseeable manner. Nor was the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee minimally safe for its expected purpose. 

88. At all relevant times, Plaintiff used the Zimmer NexGen Knee for the purpose and in the 

manner intended by Defendants. 

89. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s physician, by the use of reasonable care would not have 

discovered the breached warranty and realized its danger. 

90. The breach of the warranty was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s injuries. 

91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, including their failure 

to exercise ordinary care in the design, formulation, testing, manufacture, sale, and 

distribution of Zimmer NexGen Knee, Plaintiff was implanted with Zimmer NexGen 

Knee and suffered severe and debilitating injuries, economic loss, and other damages, 

including but not limited to, cost of medical care, rehabilitation, lost income, permanent 

instability and loss of balance, immobility, and pain and suffering, for which they are 

entitled to compensatory and equitable damages and declaratory relief in an amount to 

be proven at trial. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 16
17

92. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory 

and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees and all such 

other relief as the Court deems proper. 

Count VII – Punitive Damages

93. Plaintiff repeats and incorporate by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if 

fully set forth herein. 

94. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because the Defendants’ wrongful acts and/or 

omissions were wanton or in conscious disregard of the rights of others. 

95. The Defendants misled both the medical community and the public at large, including 

Plaintiff herein, by making false representations about the safety and efficacy of the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee and by failing to provide adequate instructions and training 

concerning its use. Defendants downplayed, understated, and/or disregarded their 

knowledge of the serious and permanent side effects and risks associated with the use of 

the Zimmer NexGen Knee despite available information demonstrating that the Zimmer 

NexGen Knee could loosen and separate, causing serious harm to patients. 

96. Such risks and adverse effects could easily have been avoided had Defendants not 

concealed knowledge of the serious and permanent side effects and risks associated with 

the use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee or provided proper training and instruction to 

physicians regarding use of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

97. Defendants’ misrepresentations included knowingly withholding material information 

from the FDA, the medical community and the public, including Plaintiff, concerning the 

safety of the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 17
18

98. Defendants were or should have been in possession of evidence demonstrating that the 

Zimmer NexGen Knee caused serious side effects. Nevertheless, Defendants continued to 

market the Zimmer NexGen Knee by providing false and misleading information with

regard to its safety and efficacy. 

99. Defendants failed to provide warnings that would have dissuaded health care 

professionals from using the Zimmer NexGen Knee, thus preventing health care 

professionals and consumers, including Plaintiff, from weighing the true risks against the 

benefits of using the Zimmer NexGen Knee. 

100. Defendants failed to provide adequate training and instructions to physicians that 

could have prevented failure of the Zimmer NexGen Knee causing serious harm and 

suffering to patients, including Plaintiff Myrta Lopez. 

101. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory 

damages and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit and attorneys’ fee and 

such other relief as the Court deems proper. 

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief against Defendants, jointly and severally, as 

follows:

1. Compensatory damages, in excess of the amount required for federal diversity 

jurisdiction, and in an amount to fully compensate Plaintiff for all his injuries and damages, both 

past and present;

2. Special damages, in excess of the amount required for federal diversity 

jurisdiction and in an amount to fully compensate Plaintiff for all of his injuries and damages, 

both past and present, including but not limited to, past and future medical expenses, costs for 

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 18
19

past and future rehabilitation and/or home health care, lost income, permanent disability, 

including permanent instability and loss of balance, and pain and suffering.

3. Double or triple damages as allowed by law; 

4. Attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of this action;

5. Punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;

6. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in the maximum amount allowed by 

law; and

7. Such further relief as this Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all claims asserted in this Complaint.

DATED: June 7, 2011

By: /s/: Marc Grossman

Marc D. Grossman NY# 0730

Randi Kassan NY #7541

(pro hac vice pending)

100 Herricks Road

Mineola, New York 11501

Phone: (621) 741-5252

Fax: (516) 741-1243

Email: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com

rkassan@thesandersfirm.com

Attorney(s) for Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-03288-SDW -MCA Document 1 Filed 06/07/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 19